That Maybe what the founders believed, but THIS is what the Progressives Believe:
The only real power comes through force.
Excellent
So not only did the Supremes of the Land violate their oath of office by not standing firm on Our Constitution, but this JUDGE did also....
Very interesting, I hope this Lady sues the heck out of everybody involved and that is EVERYBODY!!!
> she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty
Yes! Absolutely! The religious liberty argument is doomed to failure.
Why this doomed strategy is being pursued rouses suspicion of questionable motives.
The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle, and electing those of another, in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election. Over the judiciary department, the constitution had deprived them of their control. That, therefore, has continued the reprobated system, and although new matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new, and after twenty years’ confirmation of the federal system by the voice of the nation, declared through the medium of elections, we find the judiciary on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation.It was happening in Jefferson’s latter years.
In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.” If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.
For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also. …
— Letter to Spencer Roane, 09/06/1819
The Founders intended no such balance of power. They intended that each branch have some checks and balances on the other, but they intended the Presidency to be a week magisterial office except in the case where the country needed to present a single voice: in foreign policy.
They intended to give the Federal Judiciary almost no power whatsoever. They certainly did not intend the judicial branch would have the right to vacate laws passed by Congress, nor would even the most ardent Federalists have believed the Supreme Court entitled to trample on the prerogatives reserved to the states by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The truth is, the crap about "co-equal branches of government" just like the "living Constitution" is a liberal fabrication. The Founders intended the Congress to be by far the most powerful branch of government, as should always be the case in a government of, by, and for The People.
That Maybe what the founders believed, but THIS is what the Progressives Believe:
The only real power comes through force.
Good. Ask Jefferson. But somewhere along the line, let’s inquire into the Supreme law of the land itself, the Constitution. What does the Constitution say is the law of the land? The Supremacy Clause states:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land” (Art VI, Cl 2).
Any unconstitutional federal act or law is NOT the law of the land, but is invalid and should be nullified.
Patriots, please don’t overlook that the Founding States gave Congress the power to impeach and remove corrupt justices from the bench.
The problem is that we’ve now got a corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate in addition to corrupt justices, the Senate not willing to work with the House to remove such justices from the bench.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.
Check and balances does not mean equal power .
We are were we are because our legislature has abdicated their power to both the courts and the executive branch
We are now being ruled by tyrants
No, it’s binding on one branch and one branch only.
” The only problem with Kim Davis’s position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.”
Exactly. Without a loud, massive and prolonged show of support by Christians and others who are against same sex marriage, she’ll just be turned into an example of what happens if you go against the gay Mafia.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the tyrants in black robes to have the powah that they have today. They do not have the authority to make law and levy taxes. Every damn judge in this country should be in jail for the unconstitutional crap they are pulling.
bttt
Responsibility2nd posted that Jefferson quote about 11 hours earlier than this post. As I said then, SCOTUS needs to hang this on his wall.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3332877/posts?page=93#93
My question is why consciousness objection is all of a sudden off limits?
Last I looked Kim Davis was not a federal government employee.
Yet the only thing you hear coming out of the media’s maw is how this clerk is a “government” employee who is flaunting federal law.
Kim Davis is a state employee and there is nothing in Kentucky law which requires her to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
This dispute hasn’t anything to do with religion, but everything to do with state’s rights and the federal government running roughshod over state law and invalidating it claiming some kind of “trumping” supremacy it never was supposed to have and will never in truth have.
As another poster has said, we are being ruled by tyrants in the executive and judicial branches of the federal government which branches have been gifted by a severely dysfunctional congress with powers intended by the Constitution to be the sole province of congress and the people only.
The one thing the left in America does better than even the Nazis did is create and run propaganda machines which obscure and deflect the ability of the citizen to see the truth.
I have a neighbor who’s a screaming liberal and whose favorite statement is “Fed trumps State! Fed trumps State [law]!”
As though this was all some sort of card game on the internet. He is a drunk and an internet gambler by the way.
So posting on some obscure site is not going to result in change?
Remember
The 3 branches are NOT equal.
Congress is first.
The Executive second.
The SCOTUS is third and there is no limit to the amount of “Justices” that can be appointed to that branch, the Right Wing needs to add at least 5 John Birch Society members to that effed up institution.
Finally there is absolutely no Constitutional Authority for ANY Federal Court save the SCOTUS.
The existing “Federal Judiciary” can be annihilated by the Executive and Congress.
The “Federal Judiciary” is a jobs program for lawyers.
TRUMP is NOT a lawyer.
Great. Ask Jefferson. That’s OK. But shouldn’t we be inquiring into the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the CONSTITUTION?