Posted on 09/08/2015 3:30:20 PM PDT by pgyanke
Dear Powers-that-Be,
How can SCOTUS proclamations be the "law of the land" if they are not empowered to make law?!
Exactly. That's not how it works. They can note a conflict in law. Then, it is up to the people's representatives to correct the law through the legislature. Remember that whole "of the people, by the people" bit? It used to mean something.
They cant.
That’s why they need to be impeached. Few have for violating the constitution, that is why they are able top do it so openly.
Great book. I have the Kindle edition (for convenience) and the paper edition (for permanence).
SCOTUS has assumed the power of a super legislature, and we allowed them to.
No one has stood up to them, and no one has stopped them.
Also, the media is ALSO implying this Iran nuclear deal is a foregone conclusion EVEN THOUGH THE 'SIDE DEALS' WILL BE OMITTED FROM THE AGREEMENT BEING VOTED ON IN VIOLATION OF THE CONGRESS' OWN LAW REQUIRING IT (CORKER-CARDIN).
The Iran deal must NOT be put up for vote UNLESS THE SIDE DEALS ARE INCLUDED PER THE CORKER-CARDIN LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS!!!!!
So many FALSE NARRATIVES ADVANCED BY THE ODUNGO PUPPET MEDIA, so little time!
They should ‘Pledge’ that they will uphold the Constitution and nothing but the Constitution of the United States and should they fail, they shall be removed immediately for not performing the duties they swore to uphold...
I hate that “law of the land” liberal psychobabble only because it doesn’t apply to Marxist, liberal Democrats. If the “law of the land” meant anything, Obama, Clinton and Cummings would have been in jail a long time ago.
SCOTUS determined that most every marriage law in the US was unconstitutional. The news showed people hugging under rainbow flags. A couple state legislatures actually acted, most didn’t.
No new laws were created, no court can unilaterally clip and snip words out of a law - they get to say ‘yes, this law is valid’ or ‘no, this law is not valid.’
This isn’t difficult, it is what used to be middle school civics.
But hey, this scam has been going on for 40 years.
0dingo swore to 'protect and defend the United States' from foreign invasion. Not only did he fail, he ENABLED THE INVADERS.
..and Lerner, Holder, Lisa Jackson, Koskinen, Jeh Johnson, etc. etc.
The Grand Jct. Daily Sentinel editorial today had that effect on me.. I had to attempt educate the idiots.
They said same sex marriage is now the law o fth eland— my response was if so then Dred Scott v. Sanford ,1857 is the law of the land— the political career of President Lincoln was therefore contrary to the law of the land— the bloody Civil War/War of Northern Aggression was an unjust war since Dred Scott a supreme Court decision is Law of the Land. The editor just declared slaves as less than citizens. And if that example ws too harsh—then there is the unanimous supreme Court decision Feb.29,1892 Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States. Upheld by judicial review 1931 US v. Macintosh— declared the Controlling legal precedent in 1991 US v. Chapman including the thought — ‘...this is a Christian Nation....’ Law of the land? if only the other side would agree with any consistency.
Corker-Cardin is unconstitutional, and absurd besides.
Either something is an Executive Agreement, binding only on the President who signs it and void upon the inauguration of his successor, or it is a treaty, void unless ratified.
Corker-Cardin attempts to amend the Constitution by statute, which is obviously not allowed.
Taxation without representation...sounds familiar...somehow.
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.