Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WackyKat
He wilfully, publicly, and persistently defied the law and the rulings of courts with superior jurisdiction

He defied judicial fiat. He broke no state or federal law. There is a difference.

189 posted on 11/13/2003 10:21:14 AM PST by m1-lightning (We ought not politicize this war. - Tom Daschle 09/25/02)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: m1-lightning
He defied judicial fiat. He broke no state or federal law. There is a difference

The federal court found him in violation of the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.

For several decades, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment was incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even our current conservative justices in the SCOTUS consider the First Amendment as binding to the states.

In order to give the powers back to the states, we need to appoint judges who do not think that the First Amendmend applies to the states.

Finding such judges will be difficult. Once a branch of government has grabbed power, it will not let go easily. That's why federal judges, even conservative Supreme Court Justices, will continue to rule that the First Amendment applies to the states, and they will continue to decide state issues using the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

223 posted on 11/13/2003 10:35:40 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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