Posted on 02/03/2011 10:29:26 PM PST by Citizen X_Area 51
To impose and enforce a law that has been declared illegal by a legitimate court is to establish a dictatorship.
Of course.
You'd have a government where only a few unelected judges get to determine what the oath means?
Frankly, that's exactly what you have now, which is exactly why we're in the trouble we're in.
It depends. On whether said ruling was right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional. Legal in the strictest sense, or illegal.
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
The potential here ..is what the Obama administration and the Left see as opportunity.
The opportunity is to criminalize political difference of opinion. They spent the Bush 43 years talking about that opportunity. Nobody on the right wants to listen..because they frankly can’t believe it.
This, BTW, is where the UN is trying to go as well.
http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/
We are in mortal danger...and this issue, Criminalization of difference of opinion, is the nexus between the left and Islam.
We have a system where law is determined by judicial officials, not by individuals, otherwise there’d be tremendous potential for not just anarchy, but abuse. I’m not so much concerned about pro-freedom decisions but anti-freedom law, like Obummer’s.
If Obama is going against the court, I say start the impeachment proceedings.
To come to the conclusion that you have,
you have to, like leftists do, reject the idea of
objective truth and objective rules.
Only those issues where the Constitution, and the original writings of the founders, are not addressed are “up for interpretation”. Everything else should be referred to as THE meaning. The original meaning is the only meaning, subject to amendment through the amendment process.
Let me just say this: if Obama and the Democrats continue implementation, and this is lost in SCOTUS, I FEAR FOR MY COUNTRY. At a minimum, I predict Washington will burn and states will deport Federal officials from within their borders. At a minimum. If SCOTUS turns down the will of the people, we may be looking at full-blown civil war.
We have a system where law is determined by judicial officials
That's not what the Constitution says.
Constitutionally, judges can only rule in individual cases that are before them. And their rulings only reach as far as the parties involved. They don't make laws. That is the prerogative of the legislative branch. They can't veto laws. That is the sole prerogative of the executive branch. And they can't write or amend Constitutions. That is the prerogative of the people.
The discussion with “weird” reminds me of discussions with a libinlaw about “right and wrong” issues.
I refer to the Bible as the objective source for determining right and wrong, she thinks it’s a matter of individual interpretation, and insists that it’s my opinion that I’m asserting.
She’s “grounded” [with her feet firmly planted in mid-air] in relativism,
and I assume objective absolutes.
When I refer to an objective absolute, she insists that it’s my opinion. And round and round we go.
There you go.
Yes you’re right, I meant interpreted.
Welp, I don’t really want to have this debate right now, I just hope we can agree that Obama should be impeached if he continues?
From your screen name can we assume you’re actually a Tolkien fan?
Let’s assume you are for a moment.
When Denethor finally lost it and was about to burn Faramir alive, should Beregond have left his post to defend the intended victim, as the strict “law” forbid that he do?
When those in authority exceed their authority, and become in effect a law unto themselves, do not others have an obligation to stand against them, using the force that is within their control?
Is their oath to the authority of the officer above them, or to God-ordained principles of natural right?
I’m actually not a Tolkien fan, lol. Just answer my question about Obama and impeachment.
If Obama exceeds his authority, and/or breaches the obligations of the oath of office, of course he should be impeached.
Hear here!
Well said and VERY true!
If so then the ruling is, in effect, stayed for 14 days before the judgement can be executed. At least that's my reading. If this is the case then the Obama Administration can ignore the ruling for two weeks. After that they have to file an appeal and ask the Appeals Court to stay the ruling.
Here is the applicable part of Rule 62:
FRCB Rule 62
Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment
(a) Automatic Stay; Exceptions for Injunctions, Receiverships, and Patent Accountings.
Except as stated in this rule, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days have passed after its entry.
I’ll tell you, my friend, only by getting a grip on this very thing can the country be salvaged. I really believe that. This is the key.
Let me suggest that you read the 7th Amendment to the Constitution. The words "common law" have significant meaning.
And still, the judge’s authority only extends to the matters before him. No one says that in making that decision no reference can be made to precedent, or to the common law. Or that other judges can’t reference his decision in this particular case in the future.
But you know as well as I do that the application of precedent in the real world is arbitrary and capricious. When they want to apply it, they do. When they don’t want to, they don’t.
Or, maybe I’m missing your point. Correct me if I am, please.
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.