Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Kalamata
So, you believe five unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure, and who are answerable to no one (at least in theory,) are less dangerous to liberty than the elected executive and representatives of the people?

There are nine, and yes.

You may be right, now that the 4th Branch (state-appointed U.S. Senators) has been completely stripped of its power by the 17th Amendment.

There are three branches - legislative, executive, and judiciary.

175 posted on 12/28/2019 3:58:25 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
There are nine, and yes.

Technically kalamata could be considered correct in that, for a very short period, there were five justices. The Constitution designates the Congress as the authority for establishing the Supreme court and setting the number of justices (Article III, Section 1). There have been as many as ten and as few as five (briefly).

But this coupled with other basic misunderstandings of the foundation of our nation gives me pause to wonder if he might be foreign born?

186 posted on 12/28/2019 8:18:07 AM PST by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg
>>Kalamata wrote: "So, you believe five unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure, and who are answerable to no one (at least in theory,) are less dangerous to liberty than the elected executive and representatives of the people?"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "There are nine, and yes."

Then you have kissed any chance of a free republic goodbye.

*****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "You may be right, now that the 4th Branch (state-appointed U.S. Senators) has been completely stripped of its power by the 17th Amendment."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "There are three branches - legislative, executive, and judiciary"

The fourth branch was the state legislatures, until the 17th Amendment. That amendment turned the election over to the rich and wealthy found everywhere -- those that have the monetary power and desire to influence elections. The people of the states, in turn, officially lost their power and became subjects of the Federal Government.

What you support is properly labeled a despotism. This is George Washington:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them." [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]

Tragically, we didn't preserve the checks and balances put in place by our Founding Fathers, so our government has become a despotism, as Washington predicted.

Mr. Kalamata

191 posted on 12/28/2019 8:56:41 AM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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