Posted on 08/31/2008 7:07:57 PM PDT by neverdem
Since Stevens is lying on and about court documents, can’t we push for his impeachment?
BOOM
If there were four citizens who disregarded that most fundamental of American concepts—individual freedom and empowerment—it would be distressing. Americans would rightly shun them. But, 4 members of the US Supreme Court so unashamedly denouncing the right of individuals to be empowered to defend themselves and freedom. This is an outrage of the highest order.
Ultimately, if the people refuse to obey a dictate of the state, it is a matter of force that determines who has the real power. Only if the people have the ultimate means of defending liberty do the people truly have liberty. Otherwise, it is only an illusion permitted by those who truly have the power.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Democracy is a fairly good system for governing a fairly homogeneous group of people with shared ideals and values. It is NOT a reasonable system for sharing power between two or more groups with nothing in common at all which basically just hate each other. At that point, all you have left is a contest to see who can do the better job of gaming the system, which is what we have now.
You just can’t hire good help these days. The clerks who contributed to this should be dismissed. Too bad that the SCOTUS judges don’t seem to read what they sign.
Sandra Day O'Connor.
Well, okay, that's 3 words.
Thanks very much, tanknetter. I concur with your post ;)
Lib justices don’t know the precedents? How surprising!
The Constitution can be amended by the Congress and state legislatures.
The President can’t amend the Constitution, nor veto an amendment passed by Congress.
The Supreme Court can’t amend the Constitution.
There are those who think it can, but they are wrong.
Thanks neverdem.
Dunno about relevance, but this was interesting:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am11
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am11
The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v Georgia (2 U.S. 419) in 1793 (see the Events Page for details). Congress felt that the Supreme Court had over stepped its bounds, and feared it would do so again unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Chisholm case was decided in 1793, just five years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7, 1795 (340 days). The Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Later interpretations have expanded this to include citizens of the state being sued, as well.
In Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]), the passage and ratification of the 11th was challenged for two reasons. First because the President did not sign the amendment bill, and second because the amendment presented a situation where people had some legal relief before ratification that dried up after, creating an ex post facto situation. The Supreme Court rejected both challenges, setting some important precedent for future amendments.
The answer is (2).
Truth, in the liberal mind, is all relative, not something to be discovered, but something to be created to serve one's personal interests.
Does anyone really believe the Constitution contains a right to abortion? Liberal justices routinely manipulate history to support their desired outcomes.
wendy1946 wrote:
Democracy is a fairly good system for governing a fairly homogeneous group of people with shared ideals and values. It is NOT a reasonable system for sharing power between two or more groups with nothing in common at all which basically just hate each other. At that point, all you have left is a contest to see who can do the better job of gaming the system, which is what we have now.
-------------------------------------------------------
Under our republican system our constitutional 'ideals and values' are clearly outlined in the document itself..
We do not need to share power with groups that attempt to 'game the system',-- we can simply refuse to play their games, - on a county or state basis.
Civil [nonviolent] disobedience on a large enough scale will work.
County and State officials are sworn to support and defend the Constitution, -- not the socalled 'laws' made up by liberals.
No, it doesn't. It means that the twenty of them, or at least the justices are, how shall I put this -- "results oriented", and would sign a piece of dog shit if it advanced their policy objectives. Come to think of it...
Those dissents weren’t shoddy work. They were lies. A Supreme Court Justice is not a stupid person. The Liberal Justices will no more acknowledge an individual RKBA, anymore than a Conservative Justice will acknowledge a right to an abortion. The difference is that only the former is mentioned in the Constitution!
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.