Posted on 04/19/2021 6:21:06 AM PDT by Loud Mime
“And of course. No court can really enforce it’s legislation. The executive branches defer and enforce the courts legislative process.”
Yes, the courts have benefitted from their practices that should have been met frequently with “Madison moments” - go ahead, try to enforce it. Those moments should have been followed with heavy executive and legislative branch rebukes to courts acting as a legislature. The point to the courts should have been: if you want your judgements enforced then don’t intrude on our separate powers.
The Constitution is sometimes called in to support the rights of states, but is more often called in to support the rights of individuals within those states. When the Constitution favors the individuals, the result is further control being taken from the states and handed over to the federal government.
The Georgia case is interesting. Supposedly it was against the law for the state courts and executive branch to change election laws. Supposedly the legislature would have done something, but by law they were prevented from convening to oppose the judicial and executive actions.
However, if the state judiciary was in violation of Georgia law and they were in cahoots with the Georgia executive, then it would seem that the legislature could have convened regardless and stopped the crime.
That the legislature did nothing suggests that they believed two things: 1) It would have been bad optics to oppose the election rule changes and hurt their future political careers, and 2) The Republicans were still going to win regardless so there was no need to act.
I still believe that the Supreme Court should have taken the case. Even if they ruled in favor of allowing the election results to stand, it would have made it more clear that the long term effect of Bush v Gore favors the Dems since the ruling in that case is now considered by many to be equivalent to the Dredd Scott ruling.
If that's the case, then we must reject the notion of a President, of a Congress, and of a Supreme Court, too.
If the Constitution is now a "dead letter," then Nancy Pelosi is just a loud-mouthed bully of an old lady from San Francisco, and Kamala Harris is just another woman who slept her way to a better job that is now gone.
They can't have it both ways: they can't declare the Constitution is "living" in all ways except those that define their offices. It either means what it said, or it's all gone and they can all go back home to their states.
-PJ
Again you are wrong. Your hypothetical is stupid. The Constitution says the STATE LEGISLATURE determines elections not the judicial/executive. They have no role. PLEASE READ THE US CONSTITUTION
They are trying to distort things so that obvious things like “a state legislature” is now up for interpretation. It is like say what is air? Or what is male or female?
Reading the Constitution is now a waste of time.
Is it?
Can a current state legislative body, through routine legislation, deny all subsequent legislatures a Constitutionally guaranteed role in state election procedure? How can they do that without amending the federal Constitution?
“If that’s the case, then we must reject the notion of a President, of a Congress, and of a Supreme Court, too.”
You got it! It is now our destiny to break apart into separate states and regions, just like the Soviet Union.
And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. When the Roman Empire fell and Italian city-states formed, like the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Florence, the Duchy of Milan, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, there was a degree of freedom not known in the latter days of the corrupt and decadent Roman Empire. We’ve gotten to a juncture in our history where the illegitimate, tyrannical junta in DC is an obstacle to our liberty. There’s no way to avoid that fact any longer. State-by-state nullification, non-compliance, and secession is the only way to recover our stolen liberty and freedom. GOPee Delenda Est!
The only thing I would say to that is to exercise every Constitutional remedy there is before resorting to break-up as last resort.
The state legislatures still have an Article V convention of states for proposing amendments at their disposal. I've read all of the back-and-forth about the hopes and fears of such a convention, but total break-up as you suggest is still an option should the CoS fail. If states can "nullify" the federal government before a CoS, they can do so after one, too.
So, it behooves the states to garner the "goodwill" of at least trying such a Constitutional remedy first. If it's successful and the states can pass some structural amendments like certain term limits, or judicial overrule, or repeal of the 17th amendment, then we'd be in a better place to leverage that win as a framework for future CoS's.
If it fails, then the states have the example of having tried to keep the public on their side with whatever comes next.
-PJ
The bottom line is that the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties are creating confusion because they don’t want to surrender state powers that the unconstitutionally big federal government has been stealing from the states for the last 100+ years back to the states.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” —From Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 16 January 1787.
"The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
To put a stop to unconstitutional federal government overreach, patriots need to primary (2022) federal and state lawmakers who don’t agree to do the following about state powers stolen by the corrupt feds.
When the federal government accuses someone of violating a law, judges and law enforcement officials should be required to do the following.
Judges and law-enforcement officials need to inform the accused of the constitutional clause(s) that arguably justifies the allegedly broken law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where unconstitutional federal peacetime gun control laws are concerned imo.
Hi.
I have a stupid idea. Repeal the 17th amendment and viola, you have your answer.
5.56mm
I have a stupid idea. Repeal the 17th amendment and viola, you have your answer.
I have studied the 17th for some time now; I believe that repealing it will not do a bit of good since most of the states are liberalized. The citizens must be properly educated, a task that the federalized school systems refuse to undertake.
Thanks for the ping. The constitution seems clear to me. It’s up to the Legislature not the Governor, SOS, or the state courts. Those entities had no authority to circumvent the legislature’s requirements.
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.