Senator Urges President to Ignore Court Ruling

A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 4 Feb 2011 | John Semmens

[csense]

“The Courts aren’t the only ones authorized to decide the Constitutionality of the laws,” Durbin insisted.

Proof that Democrats are retarded.

[ThunderSleeps]

Well said. Just how supportive will the liberals be of a omnipotent and unchecked Executive Branch when we have President Palin for 8 years? I’m against it now, and I’ll be against it then. The Founders codified “checks and balances” for a reason. We need to get all three branches back into their respective “rice bowls” and respecting their Constitutional limits.

[Free Vulcan]

[TChad]

John, please keep the White House off your ping list. There are some ideas they should not hear.

[Vendome]

I know and they keep jumping in the boat. LOL

[smokingfrog]

What a tool

[bigbob]

Dammit I live in IL and this sounded just like something Dirtbag would say!

[csense]

“This wouldn’t be the first time a President ignored a Court decision,” Durbin observed. “Back in the 1830s, President Jackson chose to ignore a Supreme Court decision—telling then Chief Justice John Marshall to enforce his own decision.

Jackson never said that and he never defied a Supreme Court Ruling. In fact the suit was against the state of Georgia by the Cherokee Indians, and Georgia did in fact comply.

Durbin is an idiot of the highest order.

[Neville72]

“The Courts aren’t the only ones authorized to decide the Constitutionality of the laws,” Durbin insisted.

Proof that Democrats are retarded.

Actually, in this one instance Durbin is correct.

Each of the states and their citizens are authorized to decide the constitutionality of a law.

So says Mr. Jefferson:

.that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it...”

In

[csense]

?

[Ronin]

John, dammit you did it to me again!!!

I got half way through the post before I had a “Hey, wait a minute...” moment.

LOL!!!

You’re scary!!!

[Libloather]

"Just because the Court has a different opinion doesn’t mean the President must accept it.”

What if he's wrong (again)? Doesn't that mean contempt charges all around?

[aquila48]

“There’s a whole stringer full!”

Yep! You’re going to need help with the cleaning and frying. He may have gone beyond the limit with this lure, and they just keep on biting.

[Razz Barry]

Thank you, for pointing that out. I think that's the first time I've made that mistake. After hearing Schumer say our three branches of government were the Senate, the House and The President, I'm starting to believe any stupid thing made up.

[RobRoy]

>>“The Courts aren’t the only ones authorized to decide the Constitutionality of the laws,”<<

He is right. But they are the final authority. The guy is a moron and does not seem to grasp the concept of checks and balances.

Or he is just plain evil.

[Lmo56]

“The Courts aren’t the only ones authorized to decide the Constitutionality of the laws,” Durbin insisted. “We all—Congress and President, alike—take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Just because the Court has a different opinion doesn’t mean the President must accept it.”

Durbin is a friggin' maroon - he has no respect for the Sytem of Checks & Balances.

[flaglady47]

Well then, I guess the States don’t have to listen to the federal gov’t on laws they pass and mandates they impose. Thanks Dicky Turbin for making that clear to us.

[TigersEye]

Better throw some back.

[MadLibDisease]

Bookmark

[Jet Jaguar]

There are 3 parts to the government, the presidency, the senate, and the house.

That is the balance of power.

Schumer from NY said this.

I Sh!t you not.