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


1 posted on 12/26/2003 1:25:20 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Liberal Judges think 9-11 never happened - and they're seeking as if by design, to recreate the conditions for it to happen again. That's the import of their weakening our anti-terrorism laws despite the fact that even the radical Left has yet to cite one actual instance of an innocent person harmed by them.
2 posted on 12/26/2003 1:30:49 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This is why Tommy Franks tells us we are only one or two major terror incidents away from Military rule in the US. It will become necessary to REMOVE the American Judiciary in order to adequately protect ourselves.

I'm sure someone had the link handy. It was widely commented upon here.
3 posted on 12/26/2003 1:31:15 PM PST by mercy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection; joanie-f; snopercod
That right and wrong shall be subject to the arbitary whims of "the politics of the moment," are essentially the problem that President Bush has encouraged at times and ignored at other times, by his lack of knowledge about our Constitution, in particular, its foundations, which he believes are passe, now to be subject to whatever judges say.

The basic concept of law, that it is fixed, escapes him.

He would have his family follow his last will and testament, and woe be the family members who challenge that document --- "incontestable."

Yet he would defy that basis, that law is what it is until it is amended lawfully as proscribed, when it comes to our Constitution.

President Bush is entirely satisfied with leaving law and our Constitution subject to the lawyers.

You, on the other hand, have the right to vote.

You are supposed to rely upon your human spirit to overcome what transgressions upon that spirit, may come of finding "wiggle room" and playing Scrabble with our Constitution, that are his, in effect, nature, by way of his temerity in the face of his forever negotiating away what is not his to do so, yet he does, in order to "compromise" in a "bipartisan manner."

In the end, a 3/4ths majority of the State's Legislatures sitting in Constitutional Convention say what the Constitution is and means, based upon the input of the people through the democratic-republican process.

Opposed to that sovereignty of the people, are "the experts," so-called "legal" and otherwise (meaning, usually strongly oriented toward absolutism in the form of a police state).

George's biggest weakness is his refusal to read up on the history of our country and how much it takes to build the foundations UPON WHICH our liberties and prosperity can and may flourish.

4 posted on 12/26/2003 1:53:32 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Am I the only one here who understands the implications of the executive designation of organizations which are not enemies of the United States? The LTTE and PKK don't exist in a vacuum... they exist because of aggressive genocidal policy from Sri Lanka's and Turkey's governments, respectively.

I wonder what organizations a Hillary Clinton administration would designate as FTOs.
6 posted on 12/26/2003 2:17:54 PM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"Such matters of mere status pervade the federal criminal law: Was the narcotic the defendant sold a formally designated controlled substance? Was the stolen property in interstate commerce? Did the bribed public official work for a municipality that received at least $5,000 in federal funds? And ad infinitum. Were it necessary for the government to prove a defendant actually knew such minutia, it would be nigh impossible to prosecute anyone."

So it is true.

In 1998 a federal district attorney visisted my sons high school for a presentation on "career day."

I will never forget that day when my son came home from high school and told me that the federal district attorney had told him and his classmates that if they are ever charged with a federal crime, do not enter a plea of guilt or innocence but ask the judge to have the federal district attorney prove federal jurisdiction of the charges before moving forward with the case.

The federal district attorney told them that more than likely the charges will be dropped because there will be no federal jurisdiction or it will be too difficult to prove.

Of course the best part of my sons comments about this federal district attorney's remarks was when my son said, "just like you had been telling us, dad."

8 posted on 12/26/2003 4:30:44 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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