To: Federalist 78
And stock up on weapons and ammo now in case none of that works
2 posted on
12/10/2003 3:19:45 PM PST by
thoughtomator
(The U.N. is a terrorist organization)
To: Federalist 78
bump for later
3 posted on
12/10/2003 3:21:40 PM PST by
Sam Cree
(democrats are herd animals)
To: Federalist 78
What an exercise in sophistry! As if Congress has been acting Constitutionally this whole time. Lets face it they are the worst offenders. If it wasn't for the laws that they pass, we wouldn't be in such a quagmire.
To: Federalist 78
For what everyone but Justice Kennedy must surely notice is that he is, in effect, saying that only the Supreme Court enforces constitutional rights by changing what they are (and sometimes by making them up out of whole cloth) This is the kind of crap that leads to greater and greater disrespect not only for the clowns in the SC and Congress, but for the Rule of Law itself. It invites, anarchy, chaos, and possibly the violence of Civil War II.
5 posted on
12/10/2003 3:40:52 PM PST by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: Federalist 78
Wow, good article.
Article III, section 2. Passing a law forbidding courts from invoking injunctions based on special-interest group lawsuits is a great place to start. That is a simple matter of jurisdictional regulation in the Constitution.
7 posted on
12/10/2003 3:42:15 PM PST by
WOSG
(The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
To: Federalist 78
Impeach the Black-robed tyrants
To: Federalist 78
There is no longer (if there ever was) any real separation of powers in the US government. Indeed, the government has, in large part, become an enemy of liberty. The Founders eloquently warned us of that. They also wrote into the Constitution several avenues of redress, including, in the extreme, resort to force of arms by the citizenry. Its becoming clear that we are on the road to slavery, tyranny, and possibly CWII and that we may be past the point of no return. I pray that we can reverse some of the damage done. It will take decades. I am not optimistic.
12 posted on
12/10/2003 4:04:10 PM PST by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: Federalist 78
Bump for later.
13 posted on
12/10/2003 4:05:38 PM PST by
Bernard Marx
(I have noted that persons with bad judgment are most insistent that we do what they think best.)
To: All
20 posted on
12/10/2003 5:21:14 PM PST by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
To: Federalist 78
Sandra O'Connor today sodomized the U.S. Constitution! But we must have a stronger Freedom FROM Religion in her mind!
To: Federalist 78; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
28 posted on
12/10/2003 10:13:03 PM PST by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: Federalist 78
What a stupid article. The Supreme Court upholds just about anything Congress does. Why on earth would Congress want to stop them? The idea is absurd.
30 posted on
12/11/2003 3:25:27 AM PST by
Sandy
To: Federalist 78
In recent cases such as U.S. v. Lopez and Printz v. U.S.,17 some see a trend toward the defense of federalism on the Supreme Court. An interesting development, and somewhat ironic historically considering the context of the article. The Substantail Effects Doctrine is directly derived from the New Deal Commerce Clause, a doctrine that was first opposed by the USSC. It was only accepted under the threat of FDR's Court Packing Bill - a mechanism by which Congress and the Executive branches forced the USSC to come around to their way of thinking.
39 posted on
12/11/2003 4:45:50 PM PST by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: Federalist 78
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it and starting this thread.
42 posted on
12/12/2003 6:10:03 AM PST by
Law
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson