Rest assured Ed, I would fight, -- just as I fight bills like HR 3893.
Which leads to the question, - seeing you
LOL - Get off this balance of power gig. SCOTUS only has the power of OPINION and needs the executive to enforce it. This Bill prevents the President from rubber stamping everything SCOTUS says, like in the children's game SIMON SEZ.
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
California is ____________________! Why did the good citizens of CA let them do it? Repeal the law and throw the idiots that passed it into the sea, or move out of the marxist state of affairs there.
The Revolutionary Second Amendment written by Brent J. McIntosh, Law Clerk, Hon. Dennis Jacobs, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
The revolutionary understanding of the Second Amendment is founded on the idea that the right to bear arms exists to protect the American populace from governmental tyranny. The revolutionary right to bear arms is premised on the normative assertion that while representative government will generally ensure non-tyrannical governance, it is still imperative that the populace retain the means with which to effectuate the most drastic of representative actions: the overthrow of an antidemocratic regime. If other vehicles for popular control of the government (particularly the vote) fail, the right to alter or abolish the government ensures that the citizenry possesses the ultimate trump card in the interaction between the governing and the governed.
R.J. Rummel made the following comment in a speech given to the ABA National Security Conference on "The Rule of Law in United States Foreign Policy and the New World Order. Washington, D.C., October 10-11, 1991:
Today, we can extend the idea of peace through democracy to cover freedom from government genocide and mass murder. But to do so requires overcoming incredible mass ignorance even about the megamurders for which authoritarian and totalitarian governments have been responsible. Of course, everyone knows about the Nazi genocide.
Elsewhere on his website,Freedom Virtually Ends Genocide And Mass Murder he states:
By shooting, drowning, burying alive, stabbing, torture, beating, suffocation, starvation, exposure, poison, crushing, and other countless ways that lives can be wiped out, governments have killed unarmed and helpless people. Intentionally. With forethought. This is murder. It is democide.
...democide is a government's murder of people for whatever reason; genocide is the murder of people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or language.
Part of this reluctance to call a government or its ruler a murderer comes from the fact that to do so is a new and strange thought. Democide is a black hole in our textbooks, college teaching, and social science research. Few people know the extent to which governments murder people.
Note that at the workers' level, this was not an act of massacre by the uneducated, undisciplined masses, ordinary folk easily misled and aroused. As with the Holocaust, when Nazi killing squads were often led and composed of Ph.Ds and other professionals, the claims of the powerful and authoritative easily swayed the well educated to murder. In the Great Genocide, Hutu lawyers, teachers, professors, medical doctors, journalists, and other professionals, made their contribution to the methodical annihilation of the Tutsi or defiant Hutu.
What connects all these cases of democide is this: as a government's power is more unrestrained, as its power reaches into all the corners of culture and society, the more likely it is to kill its own citizens. As a governing elite has the power to do whatever it wants, whether to satisfy its most personal wishes, or to pursue what it believes is right and true, it may do so whatever the cost in lives. Here, power is the necessary condition for mass murder. Once an elite has full authority, other causes and conditions can operate to bring about the immediate genocide, terrorism, massacres, or whatever killing the members of an elite feel is warranted.
So what's all the fuss about then? First we hear they've assumed all the power, then we hear they don't have any real power.
What will you do when SCOTUS agrees with California Court of Criminal Appeals?
Rest assured Ed, I would fight, -- just as I fight bills like HR 3893.
Which leads to the question, - seeing you support HR 3893, a bill that would alter the balance of power, would you obey a rogue legislature like California's?
LOL - Get off this balance of power gig.
Laughs on you Ed, seeing you brought it up, and support giving Congress more power.
SCOTUS only has the power of OPINION and needs the executive to enforce it.
Exactly why HR 3893 is not needed.
This Bill prevents the President from rubber stamping everything SCOTUS says, like in the children's game SIMON SEZ.
Bush rubber stamps the USSC? -- Why is that ?