Posted on 07/15/2012 3:46:27 PM PDT by cap10mike
Could Texas once again become the Republic of Texas?
Without question, the Nov. 6 election will be a do-or-die, make-or-break, Rubicon-crossing event. If the presidential election goes one way, we get a “do-over.” We’ll be given the opportunity to take the first step on a long, arduous journey back to our political and economic roots. If it goes the other way, federalism and balance of power will continue to be edged out by an overreaching federal government and an imperial presidency. Socialism will have an unbreakable hold on the economy, and a centralized government, rather than a free market, will determine business’ winners and losers.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
A judges control over his court is not by law, but rather by judicial authority to maintain his judicial independence, with a long tradition of common law behind it. Like other judicial authority, it is subject to appeal to other judges. Normally you get one appeal always, but you can ask for more, but the higher courts get to choose their cases, another long tradition of common law.
A judge independent of the law!? And you were disparaging me of my comments... you, my friend, have chutzpa.
A judge is not independent of the law. That is your strawman.
He is independent, not controlled by either party in any proceeding that may occur in his court room. His rulings do not depend on either the prosecutor, or defense, or on either party in a civil suit. He may uphold arguments advanced by either party, or may write or hold an opinion that is different from either.
And yet in post 381 you say:
A judges control over his court is not by law, but rather by judicial authority to maintain his judicial independence, with a long tradition of common law behind it.{And as a self-contradiction, you say that the control stems from a tradition of common law. But either the term 'law' covers "common law" or the term "common law" is a misnomer and not really law at all; if the latter then the judge's power is actually less legitimate than a priest who depends wholly upon 'tradition'.}
He is independent, not controlled by either party in any proceeding that may occur in his court room.
Ah, but does that mean that he is free to violate the Law that is th Constitution that establishes his position? (I already gave examples.)
His rulings do not depend on either the prosecutor, or defense, or on either party in a civil suit. He may uphold arguments advanced by either party, or may write or hold an opinion that is different from either.
That is not the matter at hand; the matter at hand is the liberty to declare things contrary to the authority that establishes their own position. Logically this is impossible; so either they must fall under the strictures of the Constitutions OR their authority is derived from a place other than what has been presented (that is the constitution).
To assert that a judge's ruling, that his authority, can legitimately countermand the Constitution is to render him independent of the Constitution, yes or no?
Moonshot925=NS
Concur
I suggest that if Texas wants to leave, they better at least file suit, and say pretty please.
Of course reality isn’t most secessionists’ strong suit.
If you want to get all influential, why not exercise the Texas annexation option to cut Texas up into 5 states. That would give you at least 8 more senators, and perhaps a few more representatives in change. North Texas, West Texas, South Texas, East Texas, and Austin. Ok, that last one would go for the Dems, but still a net gain, right?
You can pretend that the 14th Amendment is not valid, I don’t have to go along with your delusion.
You showed me that you think that no law can abridge a right you think you have.
You didn’t show me that a law abridges a right that you actually do have.
Note the subtle difference. Your delusions are not law. See how that works?
No, I showed you a constitution that mandates no law shall abridge that right [the NM]; and I showed a Constitution affirming rights and specifically prohibiting a judge's ruling ["that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience" (WRT religious freedom)].
You didn’t show me that a law abridges a right that you actually do have.
Note the subtle difference. Your delusions are not law. See how that works?
So then, you are asserting that (a) the State's Constitution is not law; (b) a right recognized by said Constitution is not a right; and (c) that pointing out these conflicting with law is actually delusion. (Oh, and I did give example of violating law here.)
But please continue.
No. You showed me your assertion of what the law was, and provided a copy/paste of the text of the law. That is different than what the law actually is.
The law is not the words with which it is written. It includes that too, but it is more.
It includes the common law, the record of past cases which help you to understand the words. It includes the legislative record to help understand the ideas behind the words. It includes the context of current events when the law was written, and the context of the events when an act in violation of the law took place.
Example:
Violation of Law? He was exceeding the speed limit.
Context: He was a police officer in pursuit of a dangerous felon.
Moral: The map is not the terrain.
Or, if you like the Pirates of the Carribean franchise:
“We thought of them as more like guidelines.”
Legally, sure, effectively being a function of force of arms, or will. Lacking that, and it's lacking, a rather silly concept.
I would remind YOU that Nuclear Weapons are on Texas soil.
Ft. Hood & Ft. Bliss.
I would remind YOU that Nuclear Weapons are on Texas soil.
Ft. Hood & Ft. Bliss.
No. The bottom line is that you need to zip your pie hole and worry about that leftist toilet of California where you live!
Texans will do exactly what they want. To hell with Obama and his communist congress.
The nuclear weapons are on federal bases. Texas doesn’t control that.
Rather like Ft. Sumter was a federal installation, built on a shoal, not S.Carolina soil.
And Texas v. White resolved the matter legally, if there was any doubt.
Article 3 of the Constitution requires controversies be resolved at the Supreme Court. Of course federal legislation or amendment would be other ways that could resolve some issues. You don’t get to avoid the requirement to resolve controversies in court by declaring that you don’t want to.
Ah, another reasoned and intellectual post by the Ron Paul faction. I got to know quite a few of them when I lived in Sealy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.