We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ^ | March 4, 2004 | Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland)

[Ed Current]

"If you allow Christians to pray, you'll have to allow satanists to pray too.

I agree that this is terribly unfair to the satanists:

"Elijah told them to build their altar and place their sacrifice on it and then pray to their god. If their god didn’t answer, he would do the same. The 850 prophets began to pray, cut themselves till blood gushed from their wounds, but their gods never answered them by fire. All the while Elijah was mocking them and asking them where their god was. Their god never answered them so then it was Elijah’s turn."

 

 

 

[jonestown]

Ed Current wrote:
As explained in post #1, there isn't any balance of power. SCOTUS has assumed it all.
SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.

---

At # 41, you wrote: "How right you are", in agreement with my comment that; - SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.

It follows, - SCOTUS has not assumed it all.

You also agreed that, -- the 'balance of power' is being abused by all three federal branches, and, -- by all State & local governments.

Thus, it is illogical to support a bill that alters the balance of power, [as it is outlined in the Constitution], -- just because all levels of government are abusing their powers.

We have a political problem, not a Constitutional one. This problem will be best solved by political means, not by altering our original Constitutional balance of powers.

[MHGinTN]

I'm still convinced that until several Federal Judges (including Ginsberg on SCOTUS) are impeached and removed in disgrace, the judicial tyranny will continue unabated.

[Ed Current]

Thus, it is illogical

ARTICLE III

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have APPELLATE Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Ed Current]

I'm still convinced that until several Federal Judges (including Ginsberg on SCOTUS) are impeached and removed in disgrace, the judicial tyranny will continue unabated.

You need 67 SENATORS to remove a federal judge. The GOP only has 55 with at least 5 being no different than a DemoNcrat.

So, you are at least 17 Senators short of removing any federal judge.

ARTICLE III removes the cases from the judges and requires only 51 Senators, a simple majority in the U.S. House and the President.

The V.P. votes in a 50/50 tie in the Senate, so there is a possiblity that the bill would pass.

Impeachment, at this point in time, is as impossible as a Pro-Life Amendment.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

Excellent!

[Ed Current]

Show me where I also agreed that, -- the 'balance of power' is being abused by all three federal branches, and, -- by all State & local governments.

[RonF]

"How ya figure?"

In Dale vs. BSA, the Monmouth County Council of the BSA, in New Jersey, cancelled the registration of James Dale as an Assistant Scoutmaster. It did so because Mr. Dale had stated in a newspaper article that he was homosexual, which the BSA determined violated it's proscription against having "avowed homosexuals" as leaders. Mr. Dale sued the BSA, seeking to be reinstated. The BSA won in the lower and appellate courts, but lost in the New Jersey Supreme Court when it found that New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws overrode all other considerations. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision on appeal. It seems to me that if this bill had been law prior to that case, it would have forbidden the case from being heard by the Supreme Court and thus the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court would have stood.

[Ed Current]

It seems to me that if this bill had been law prior to that case, it would have forbidden the case from being heard by the Supreme Court and thus the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court would have stood.
You are correct.

But you must consider:

• It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that sodomy is a constitutional right. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003).

[jonestown]

The 'balance of power' is being abused by all three federal branches, and, -- by all State & local governments.
SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.

38 posted on 12/22/2004 5:12:10 PM PST by jonestown

---

How right you are.

41 posted on 12/22/2004 5:22:30 PM PST by Ed Current | To 38 |

[Ed Current]

READ POST #41

And thanks for bumping the article.

[Ed Current]

SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.

How right you are.

posted on 12/22/2004 5:22:30 PM PST by Ed Current

[Ed Current]

Now read post #53

[jonestown]

In any case, it is a fact; -- the 'balance of power' is being abused by all three federal branches, and, -- by all State & local governments.

Thus, it is not logical to support a bill that alters the balance of power, [as it is outlined in the Constitution], -- just because all levels of government are abusing their powers.

We have a political problem, not a Constitutional one.
This problem will be best solved by political means, not by altering our original Constitutional balance of powers.

[jonestown]

I read your post #53 earlier, and concluded that you contradict yourself. I explained why at my post #63.

[Ed Current]

I explained why at my post #63.

To: Ed Current

I'm still convinced that until several Federal Judges (including Ginsberg on SCOTUS) are impeached and removed in disgrace, the judicial tyranny will continue unabated.

posted on 12/23/2004 7:44:42 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)

This time of year many folk indulge in beverages that alter an otherwise sober mind.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that you aren't able to keep track of what I said, or what you said, nor even who you are.

[jonestown]

Ed Current wrote:
This time of year many folk indulge in beverages that alter an otherwise sober mind.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that you aren't able to keep track of what I said, or what you said, nor even who you are.

---

Get a grip Ed. My post was at #62, and my beverage at this time of the morning is coffee.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that you aren't able to argue the issues I raise, and instead intend to divert attention by making personal remarks. Keep up the 'good' work.

[Ed Current]

I explained why at my post #63.

posted on 12/23/2004 8:53:50 AM PST by jonestown

My post was at #62, and my beverage at this time of the morning is coffee.

posted on 12/23/2004 9:43:03 AM PST by jonestown

Outstanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You had a 50/50 chance of guessing which post was yours and you got it right.

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[RonF]

"It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that sodomy is a constitutional right. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003)."

What's that got to do with what I'm talking about? In Dale vs. BSA, it was the New Jersey legislature that passed a law giving sexual orientation equal status in N.J. State anti-discrimination law with race, etc.; this was not something imposed by judges.

[Ed Current]

The BSA won in the lower and appellate courts, but lost in the New Jersey Supreme Court when it found that New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws overrode all other considerations. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision on appeal. It seems to me that if this bill had been law prior to that case, it would have forbidden the case from being heard by the Supreme Court and thus the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court would have stood.

posted on 12/23/2004 8:30:04 AM PST by RonF

---

• It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that sodomy is a constitutional right. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003).

If this bill had been law prior to that case, it would have forbidden Lawrence v. Texas from being heard by the Supreme Court and thus the decision of "The full court, 7-2." would have stood.

• A three-judge panel of the Texas 14th District Court ruled in the defendants' favor
• The full court, however, voted to reconsider its decision, upholding the law's constitutionality 7-2.
• The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was petitioned to hear the case; the Court, the highest appellate court in Texas for criminal matters, denied review.
• The case then arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court, with a petition being filed July 16, 2002.
• All sodomy laws in the US are now unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private.

  Suppose that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opined against the Texas Law. The damage would have been confined to Texas, if SCOTUS were prohibited from reviewing the case (H. R. 3893). The remainder of the country is not affected and Texas can repair their highest court.

  As it was, the Texas lower court was defeated by SCOTUS and so was the rest of the country.