Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 4 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[itsahoot]

and make sitting up there on the bench trying to internationalize the United States not quite so much fun any more

Sadly your congress is not in disagreement with this position. Else they would put a stop to it.

[itsahoot]

Sure, the liberal justices are 'far out', but so are rabble-rousing 'states rightists'. They are just on opposite ends of the constitutional spectrum.

I hope you are not running for congress, or worse already a member.

[tpaine]

Congressman Billybob:
Lemme know what you think.

---

O'Connor is as liberal as they come, -- but the idea that she is openly trying to subvert the constitution in 'states rights' matters is rabble-rousing political bull.
She's dumb -- but not ~that~ stupid.

Nope. Our wannabe congressman is using some minor rubber chicken dinner remarks to puff himself up as a defender of the 'sovereign states rights' faith..

States have no sovereign 'rights' over individuals, they have powers, limited by our Constitutuion & BOR's.. Sometimes the USSC agrees, -- far to often they don't.

[tpaine]

Bobby asked what I thought..

When he couldn't rebut, he picked up his marbles and went home.. Is that what you want from a legislator in DC?

---

Congressman Billybob:
"Lemme know what you think."

---

O'Connor is as liberal as they come, -- but the idea that she is openly trying to subvert the constitution in 'states rights' matters is rabble-rousing political bull. She's dumb -- but not ~that~ stupid.

Our wannabe congressman is using some minor rubber chicken dinner remarks to puff himself up as a defender of the 'sovereign states rights' faith..

States have no sovereign 'rights' over individuals, they have powers, limited by our Constitutuion & BOR's.. Sometimes the USSC agrees, -- far to often they don't.

[RAY]

The arrogance of these judges is despicable. God, we should learn how to impeach them. Why on earth should we take into consideration the opinions of the idiots outside the USA – their counties have been responsible for untold misery and mayhem.

"Uphold the Constitution", what could be simpler!

[Gritty]

Very nice article!

My impression is, "tpaine" ought to change his screen name to "tpain". Making mountains out of molehills is never a good idea. It's usually best to just kill the moles and move on to weeding the lawn. Keep up the good work, BB.

The dominant bloc on the board of the Center is past and present officers of the Coca-Cola Company

I guess I can understand this. I have a son who worked for Coke as an accountant. Entering his job enthusiastically, he left even more enthusiastically after a few years observing from the inside their corporate policies and, um, "ethics". It is little wonder they proudly assert their globalist position. It's also little wonder why they cheered on Justice O'Conner and then deep-sixed her speech.

..."birds-of-a-feather" and all that....

[Zack Nguyen]

Justice O'Connor told her audience at the Southern Center, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

This is ominous. Frankly it frightens me. If Supreme Court justices start regarding "international law", unratified by the Senate, unvoted by the people, then anything is possible.

[tpaine]

This is ominous. Frankly it frightens me.
-zack-

---

"Making mountains out of molehills is never a good idea."

[Eastbound]

A troubling speech. Thanks for posting it. I'd like to offer this comment:

"The only way that international law can become relevant to a case in federal courts, is if it's incorporated into a treaty that's been ratified. The reason for that is the Constitution specifies that a treaty, once ratified by the Senate, becomes part of the laws of the United States. It then becomes relevant not because it is an international law, but because Senate ratification has made it part of US law."

The real argument is that the Senate cannot pass treaty-based laws, or any other law, if they are repugnant to the Constitutution and the BOR. (Article VI, para 2.)

Repugnant means contradictory or irreconcilable. Any law or argument which cannot pass that safeguard should be trashcanned and ignored, particularly in regard to those laws which infringe, alter, modify, abrogate, or in the least way attempt to qualify the BOR, which includes the Ninth and Tenth amemdments as well as all other personal and unalienable rights, written and unwritten.

The only logical interpretation of Article VI which should fiercely protect our personal and state sovereignty from federal and international intrusions. But has it worked?

Article VI also prohibits the state from abridging or qualifying Citizen's rights, as the safeguard is supreme over a state which may attempt infringements by its legislature or by amendment to its constitution.

If Congress cannot pass a particular law to begin with because its repugnant, then there would be no reason for the judiciary to become involved. No cases to prosecute, no reviews or appeals necessary. Problem solved.

Am I correct? Probably not, because that's not the way things are. :^<

[Eastbound]

Ping.

[goldilucky]

Tall tree...short rope

[lakey]

We must not allow our Constitution to be destroyed or America will be no more.

Amen!

[Copernicus]

Lemme know what you think.

Welcome to the 21st Century and the New Whirled Odor.

Best regards,