Posted on 02/09/2005 11:21:04 PM PST by ovrtaxt
That's my understanding, but don't take my word for it. I didn't even know about the congress limiting the courts!
On some aspects that might be preferable. On other aspects that might actually be frightening.
I agree with you, and here's another tightrope the GOP is walking: The Patriot Act with a Reno-style AG.
I don't even want to think about that possibility.
I got an email today that talked about a report on CNN that had to do with internal checkpoints.
It was really frightening stuff.
They can pass all the laws they want about "Homeland Security". (I guess now they prefer the term "Home Front Security")
The problem is that 99 percent of the folks who ever get harrassed won't be foreigners, or Mexicans, or terrorists, it'll end up being the guy next door.
Bet on it.
Just look at the average airport terminal. We wouldn't want to be 'discriminatory', right?
When we think of these bills we simply must think about Clinton, Lanny Davis, Anne Lewis, James Carville, Vernon Jordan, Monica Blewhimsky, Reno, Web Hubble, Hillary Clinton...
It is also advisable to think of the FBI and BATF. We've already seen what they are capable of. Imagine them on steroids with these new laws. It was scarey enough before these laws.
Well, I'd like to think that if they started just arresting people and not giving them trials, that the average American would have somewhat of a bad opinion about that.
But it's too late. They're way more worried about social security. About whether they are safe from the local pedophile. About what's happening in the stock market, what Trump is gonna do on "The Apprentice", hell, they're more worried about the next episode of "Will and Grace"
We've lost.
Bite me, newbie leftie scum.
Tell us more o sage DUmpster clown...(2/10/05)
The way I read this, the "Waive all laws" ONLY pertains to the building of barriers and roads at the border. The intent would seem to be to get it out of the courts and get'r done.
Yep, I'm doing that right now.
What's really sad is that there is a Soviet Party in American and a Stupid Globalist Party, neither of which is worth saving...did you run back to the DUmpster?
Consider the plight of the homeowner: in the winter it gets mighty cold and so he brings fire into his house to warm his abode. However, uncontrolled fire in the middle of one's living or family room is downright dangerous (not merely destroying a homeowner's domicile but kill him outright). Therefore the wise homeowner builds a fireplace, to contain the power of the fire, a hearth to distribute the heat of the fire, and a chimney to provide channel the noxious byproducts of fire away from the homeowner.
And so it is with citizenry and its government. Governement exists by the mutual consent of those willing to be governed by it. Congress can make any law it chooses, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator (from which there is no appeal), whether or not Congress is usurping power not delegated to it by the People (through the Constitution). The executive branch can only carry out the laws that it is delegated to enforce. Congress can make the executive and judicial branches as strong or weak according to its choosing (and at its peril also), within the confines of the document that give it authority to do so. And herein lies the beauty of that: Congress itself serves at the will of the people.
The biggest problem that I see in this regard is that the separate and several sovereign States are substantially weaker because their distinct representation has been abrogated through popular election of the Senate. This was never intended to be the case by the founders. This in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if the State's interests with respect to any arbitrary Senator at election time was made clear to the electorate, and were allowed to vigorously campaign for specific Senatorial candidates.
The peoples voice is in the House, the States voice is in the Senate. But the peoples interest lies localy, and within their own district of residence. If the States legislating bodies elect Senators who they feel will promote the State's interests in Congress, then indirectly the people have a voice in the matter by electing to their respective state legislatures candidates whom they believe will send to Washington Senators who ultimately should be looking out for their State's best interests (and indirectly the interests of the State citizenry). As such, the State has a vested interest precisely in those two Senators will be representing the whole state in Congress (and not just pandering to the largest population center in the State).
With respect to legislation, Congress can pass a law in 48 hours if they really wanted to. If there was such an egregious abuse of power by either the judiciary or the executive branch to warrant it, there'd be such a hullaballoo from Congress' constituancy they'd move and they'd move quickly. Because there's nothing that motivates a Congresscritter more than the fear of being voted out of office.
In the grand scheme of things, its just like most parents behave with their children. If the kids act up, the parents instill Draconian measures like stren rebuke, pulling an ear, or hair, inflicting some pain with a slap or spanking, or curtailing of freedom and perhaps outright revokation of things. Over time, and if the children behave, the parents lighten up and the kids may end up with even more freedoms than before. On the other hand, if the kids show they can't be trusted about anything, the parents are going to respond harshly. And so I believe it is with our government. Ultimately, whatever happens is the peoples fault, and the government they get is the one they deserve.
You are correct.
It is always imperative to consider what the opposition will do with a law.
I'm pretty sure that the idea of being allowed to ignore _all_ laws is in and of itself a bad idea whoever is in office.
Traffic violations? Murder? Drug dealing? Child abuse?
In pursuit of officiaol duties only or just in general.
Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine yet, but it sure looks strange.
True....
And they sure don't want CAIR whining, either.
It took what, a couple thousand years of civilization to come up with the Bill of Rights?
Do we want to give them up now? Just because a bunch of loony diaper-heads are waving a couple SKS's in the air?
I won't.
Yes.
When Congress passed the Telecom bill in the mid-90's, knowing parts were unconstitutional...
When Congress passed CFR and we saw the fiasco with it...
etc....
I get suspiciously nervous whenever Congress is involved in rewriting laws or wanting to change the Constitution.
I don't trust any current politician to be doing anything more than what is self-serving and in their own interest, monetarily. Not a one on Capitol Hill will ever measure up to our Founding Fathers.
"Equal and separate powers."
Not even close. The Congress was originally meant to wield more power and responsibility than the other two, and the President more than the courts.
The notion of "coequal" is nonsense.
"Not a one on Capitol Hill will ever measure up to our Founding Fathers."
I think there is ONE man up there in the entire Congress who still fulfills the duties of his office and respects the Constitutional limitations on the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.