Posted on 03/23/2005 6:26:35 AM PST by freepme99
Excellent idea!
They don't have to ask for the Bush Admin to act. The very act of issuing the subpoena is a request to the executive to act.
Since when does the Congress have to ask a President to act on the acts they pass in order for the President to do anything?
BAD IDEA.
All hail the all-powerful courts.
It's a grey area, but the Exectutive can simply ingore them, or issue an executive order.
The legislature can establish (or remove) jurisdiction.
There is one constitutional way to get rid of bad judges. Impeachment.
The Constitution is silent on murder. So, the citizens are free to murder as a retained right in your line of thinking.
The Constitution is silent on buggery. So, laws against sodomy are unconstitutional under your line of thinking.
The Constitution is silent on drug use. So, laws against drug use are unconstitutional.
Your views on the Constitution are absurd. To the extent that rights were "retained by the people" under the bill of rights, those would have been rights recognized at English common law in 1789 but not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
You are right that the Constitution sets forth a limited form of government. Congress is authorized to act only on the types of legislation enumerated, the Executive is authorized only to act in accord with that legislation and the other powers given to him under the Constitution, and the judiciary is only to interpret those laws and the cases listed in the Constitution. Among the rights involved in the Constitution, as amended, are those that guarantee that citizens shall not be deprived of life or property without due process of law. This grants the Federal government rights to examine issues such as Terri's.
There is no similar provision that protects the individual from State action with respect to so-called "privacy" issues. If they involve search and seizure, then the 4th amendment comes into play. If they involve punishment, then the 8th amendment comes into play. Civil rights, 14th.
But if it involves condoms, sodomy, welfare, midnight basketball, criminal procedure, employment law, etc., etc., there is no basis in the Constitution for federal involvement. The only reason the feds are involved is because of the expansive reading of the Constitution that came about under Roosevelt and continued apace to the present day. Now, as I learned in law school, there is NOTHING that the feds can't get involved with if they want to, under the "interstate commerce clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause. The only things left to the states presently are at the grace of the Feds.
All states in 1965 were allowed to outlaw or allow contraception.
All states in 1955 were allowed to outlaw or allow Jim Crow laws.
All states in 1955 were following the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of, as I recall, 1898, which decreed that separate but equal did not violate the 14th amendment. That decision was as wrong as the 1965 decision that found a right to privacy in the Constitution. Let's hope it doesn't take as long to correct the 40 year old Griswold decision as it took to correct Plessy v. Ferguson (67 years).
Your line of logic does not compute. It goes like this:
1. Courts had a bad decision that was in effect in 1955, and which governed all states. 2. Courts corrected it (actually, it was corrected in 1954 in Brown v. Bd. of Education). 3. People in 2005 agree with the correction, and no one today would argue that Plessy v. Ferguson was constitutional. 4. Therefore, court decision in 1965 creating a non-existent right to privacy is good, even though it changed all state laws, because changes to state laws are always constitutional if the Supreme Court says so.
You have a muddled way of thinking. I recommend you read transcripts of Scalia's latest speeches and that you buy and read Mark Levin's latest book, Men in Black. Then, think about it a little. Then, whatever you continue to believe, at least it will be a little more educated.
In nearly all cases, murder is prosecuted under state statutes. See my previous post. I explicitly said, "federal government".
There is no similar provision that protects the individual from State action with respect to so-called "privacy" issues.
Implicit in your words here is that the government can do whatever it wants unless the rights of the citizenry are explicitly protected under the Constitution (as against illegal search/seizure and cruel and unusual punishment). But that is precisely why the Ninth Amendment was included:
NINTH AMENDMENT. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your line of logic does not compute.
You misread my very simple point. That something was considered constitutional at some previous point in time doesn't mean that it was rightly held to be so.
The calls to send in the Marshals or the FL Nat'l Guard will go unheeded, as will the ultimate application to the USSC.
NO politician will take the risk to his office, legacy, or future in the melee that would follow.
As much as I hate it, Terri will die barring a miracle from the Lord.
I see this as the opening shot of a much larger revolution.
I agree with you completely, but, the actions you avocate have been the basis of challenges to POTUS before.
My point was that the only REAL risk to the President by taking this course is possible impeachment. Given the current makeup of Congress, I don't see that happening.
Those that risk little, gain little.
I didn't say it wasn't.
I don't support the seizure of Terri by Federal Marshals or the FL Nat'l Guard. It is, however, her only chance left.
Governor Jeb Bush: 850-488-4441
President Bush at the White House: 202-456-1414, 202, 456-1111
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Should Clinton not have been impeached, because there weren't enough votes in the Senate to convict? Do it anyway! Find the most egregious example you can, and vote to impeach. There have been judges removed in the past.
THE 'VAST LIFE-WING CONSPIRACY' AGAINST 'poor wittuw michael' SCHIAVO [FR Link page]
For someone to believe Michael, one would have to think that everyone is conspiring against him. It's actually a major tin-foil conspiracy to think that her family, the President, Congress, Rush, Hannity, Savage, the Pope, many FReepers, many bloggers, Newsmax, WND, various nurses, various doctors, etc. are conspiring against Michael Schiavo.
The press conference will be on Fox and CNN today...He believes Sean Hannity will also have it on his show.
The difference there was that the federal government used Marshals and soldiers to enforce a court order. Here, such use of Marshals and soldiers would be for the purpose of disobeying a court order.
Once we allow the President to use force to overturn an unpopular legal decision, we have taken the first steps toward dictatorship.
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.