Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Clump

“My understanding is that the state legislature wanted to pass a law that would protect as many unborn children as possible and possibly survive in court.”

They swore before God to support the Constitution, not to obey a lawless court.

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

If you’re one of those who has bought into the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Marbury vs. Madison, arrogated to itself the supreme power to decide what the Constitution says and means, and the power to legislate from the bench, and to veto laws, you’ve believed a Big Lie. In fact, you’ve believed the lie that is doing more to destroy our republic and our form of government than any other single thing. John Marshall promulgated a constitional supremacist view, not a judicial supremacist one. And he made it clear that not only must the court obey the Constitution, so must every other officer of government, in every branch. Don’t believe me? Go read it for yourself. They still wrote in plain, non-lawyerly English back then.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html

“...a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

— Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, majority opinion, Marbury vs. Madison


90 posted on 07/13/2013 7:04:27 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: EternalVigilance

I said I wasn’t trying to pick a fight.
I know good and well about the Constitution and I have even litigated it in court as a lawyer.
My point is that (even though it’s wrong) we have to either alter or abolish the system or play within the confines of the rules that exist.
Ignoring the judicial process simply because we don’t consider ourselves bound by erroneous SCOTUS decisions won’t mean anything when the law gets blocked by a federal judge.
I personally would be fine with Texas declaring independence from the US and banning all abortions.
So it’s either abolish or alter the system or play within the rules.
Again, if you were in the TX legislature (just a regular state rep.- not Speaker) what would you do?
That is a serious question.
It is one I have had to ask myself.


95 posted on 07/13/2013 7:16:05 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: EternalVigilance

Oh, so you agree with Obama on the courts? He consistently ignores the courts rulings on issues and goes ahead and does what he wants anyway? Do you consider that to be unconstitutional, immoral, unconscionable, insidious, nefarious, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous, and a travesty against the American people there Jackie Chiles?

We ignore the courts, they ignore the courts. Real smart plan there on your little road to dictatorship. The courts may suck, but a constitutional crisis sucks worse.


120 posted on 07/13/2013 9:24:41 AM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson