Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
it's been YEARS since you posted anything BUT propaganda, deceptions, 1/2-truths & nonsense to FOOL the naive & unwary.
otoh, at least ONE FReeper has "caught you in" several DECEPTIONS on THIS thread alone.
free dixie,sw
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
the FIRST time that the supremes decided to do that, they should have been "slapped down" & "slapped down HARD", by the POTUS/Congress. had the Founders done that, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in NOW, with abominations like Roe v. Wade.
the decisions of the courts were NEVER intended to be Holy Writ & did NOT "come down from the mount, graven in stone".(this will be a 'shock to your system", as you are KNOWN to be a WORSHIPER of the courts.)
imVho, we should do at least the following things to END the dictatorship of the courts"
1. change the Constitution to ELECT all judges for ONE 6-year term,
2. ASSURE that never again will any court MAKE laws, rather than interpret those laws &
3. REQUIRE that all judges be subject to RECALL "for cause" at ANY time in their term.
free dixie,sw
Article III, Section 2, Clauses 1 and 2.
more deception on YOUR part.
free dixie,sw
What I can do is recognize a faulty decision by the Court.
Shall we rehash our earlier discussion about the Supreme Court decision that said a tomato was a vegetable and not a fruit?
No. Article II, Section 2 gives the Supreme Court all the authority it needed.
so you've been caught yet AGAIN posting a LIE, haven't you????
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
What you can do is say that you disagree with the decision of the court. The fact that you and Gutzman disagree with it doesn't make it faulty.
Shall we rehash our earlier discussion about the Supreme Court decision that said a tomato was a vegetable and not a fruit?
No, because if I recall you're logic was faulty there as well. The Supreme Court ruled that the tomato was a vegetable for tariff purposes, and there is nothing flawed or illogical in that. "Vegetable" is a culinary term and not a botanical term. Tomatoes are botanically a berry, but are considered a vegetable in the culinary world because they are not sweet and are not served as a fruit but are instead served as part of the main course or in salads. Cucumbers, pumpkins, squash, and peppers are all botanically fruit, though are commonly classified as vegetables. Likewise mushrooms are considered vegetables even though they are a fungus, broccoli is considered a vegetable even though they are a flower, carrots are considered a vegetable even though they are a root, and so forth and so on. The Supreme Court decision in Nix v. Heddon was entirely proper.
have you been "taking lessons" from "bubba, the LIAR"??? (laughing AT you.)
free dixie,sw
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
No state had the authority under the constitution to pass any law or make any amendments to their own constitutions which would trump the ultimate authority of the US constitution.
There was no leaving the union under our constitution without the US government passing legislation, or possibly even an amendment, to that effect because the sovereignty of the federal government could not be abrogated without the federal government's permission.
The Supremacy clause also gives the Supreme Court the power to determine constitutionality of acts of the states and federal government because it can determine which federal laws and acts are proper under the authority granted to them by the constitution and which state laws are made contrary to the constitution. It's really not that complicated.
There were two choices for the South if they wished to leave the Union:
(1) they could negotiate their way out or
(2) they could fight their way out
They chose to fight, and they lost.
Are you saying that the Constitution does not contain an Article III, Section 2? Or that section does not contain a clause 1 or clause 2? Are you admitting that you haven't the faintest idea of what 'jurisdiction' means? Or are you just demonstrating your general ignorance?
furthermore, FEW people (except the AUTHORS) read the 'declarations' and/or CARED what the slave-owners thought was important. as i've said numerous times, the 5-6% of northerners/southerners, who owned slaves/were IN "the flesh trade" were a LOUD but tiny minority.
frankly, the "declarations" tell students of the WBTS period NOTHING important to an understanding of the WBTS, except what a FEW rich individuals thought was important.
it is posting SILLY, inconsequential, bilge like "the declarations" which tells me that you know LITTLE about the 19th century, the causes of war or almost anything else.
that's why i think you are a "knows nothing" & a joke.
free dixie,sw
sorry, "nice try, but no cigar".
go read the 10th Amendement to the BOR & then tell everyone WHERE any state/group of states ceded the POWER/RIGHT of secession to the federal government.(NONE did.)
free dixie,sw
thus, we must assume that you:
1. have a "reading comprehension problem",
2. are incapable of understanding the question i asked you,
3. are DESPERATELY trying to "change the subject" (because you're smart enough to KNOW that you've "caught your tail in the gate"),
4. that you LIED or
5. all of the above..
which is it??? (could it be that the TRUTHFUL answer is #5????)
free dixie,sw
Number 2. I don't think anyone is warped enough to understand the slop you post.
By this logic I guess that a persimmon is a vegetable. No wonder I didn't like the Northern cooking I was subjected to in college.
... and [tomatoes] are not served as a fruit
You've never eaten a tomato as a fruit? (And, no, I'm not insinuating that you are a fruit. I leave such observations about you to other posters.) I guess I'll have to give up eating cherry tomatoes by themselves.
It is the scientist in me that is objecting to calling a tomato a vegetable, which it is not. It has seeds and develop from the reproductive part of the plant, therefore botanically it is a fruit regardless of what the Supreme Court says. (Did Chase make the tomato ruling too?)
Cucumbers, pumpkins, squash, and peppers are all botanically fruit
Correct. "... botanists will call them fruits because they develop from the reproductive structures of plants. From the Cornell Department of Horticulture." Source and Definitions.
IMO, if Congress or the regulatory agency wanted to tax tomato imports, they should have listed tomatoes as taxable rather than say "tax vegetables." The Supreme Court simply compounded the error.
I can't wait for our seedless grape argument.
Do you really think that even if you packed SCOTUS with the most strict constructionist jurists that they would not unanimously rule it unconstitutional if a state tried to secede?
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.