Posted on 02/22/2023 3:13:38 PM PST by foundedonpurpose
I never disagreed with that. Why tell me?
Well alrighty then.
Now, when can we start dismantling the $3 trillion unconstitutional portion of the feds?
Don’t everybody raise their hands all at once...
You were responding to that specific part of the article - showing you something else the author “left unsaid” - like what the Constitution itself says about the topic.
No, I was only saying that the Constitution can be amended, and those amendments become part of the Constitution.
Simple—as stated.
FINALLY
Thank you Martin Armstrong for finally explaining the root cause of what has amounted to a lifetime of Supreme Court f*ckery. It explains so much about their behavior, and the resulting mess that we are dealing with.
Yes, but he wasn’t.
Except not a word of his analysis is accurate, as is typical of this source. See post 3 and post 16.
The Congress is not going to save us. The DOJ is not going g to save us. The courts are not going to save us. The military is the only way.
One of the most important things to this nation’s survival is honest elections and this Supreme Court and lower courts do not have the integrity, character or the backbone to address it because it hard for them. None of them should be in judicial positions.
No shit. That case was designed to fail.
We know Robert’s is a coward. ( btw, thanks GWB …. Your assistant , who had little law experience, you first nominated would have made a better Chief Justice)
bkmk
This case never had a shot. No way SCOTUS is going to remove half of congress.
The case i really thought had a shot was the one challenging the Constitutionality of mail-in ballots, but the traitors on the Court refused to hear it.
"Therefore, it is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Judiciary Act of 1925 to reduce the Supreme Court to one of discretion."
I agree 100%.
In fact, Supreme Court's response to Brunson is an example of the kind of government overreach that St. George Tucker had warned us about imo.
"If it were, in fact, an unconstitutional exercise of power in congress to pass a law establishing the bank, nothing can manifest the impropriety of over-stepping the limits of the constitution, more than the act which we have just noticed. It shows that the most unauthorised acts of government may be drawn into precedents to justify other unwarrantable usurpations [emphasis added]." —Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 262--64, 1803.
"Supreme Court Refused to Hear the Brunson Case As Expected"
Why aren't House majority, so-called "MAGA Republicans" screaming impeachment of justices for obstructing Section 2 of the 14th Amendment concerning the Supremes ignoring Brunson?
Section 2, with its catch-all "or in any way abridged" wording, is a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred and guarantees due process concerning allegations of electoral votes being tampered with imo.
Excerpted from 14A:
"Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The misguided Roberts Court should have heard the Brunson case imo.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with headlines saying that the purpose of Brunson was to overturn election of 2020. Depending on how you interpret that, Trump 47 is due another full term in office imo.
Patriots, the bottom line is this imo. What is your threshold of “pain” for peacefully stopping unconstitutionally big state and federal governments controlled by bully, constitutionally undefined political parties, from oppressing the people under their boots?
The inevitable remedy for ongoing, post-17A ratification, corrupt political party treason (imo)...
All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.
If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.
If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.
With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.
In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.
Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying RINOs for 2024 elections.
Interesting article, thanks
Well, it’s an interesting argument. I’d say they certainly are not bound to hear appeals from cases where the state and local courts have original jurisdiction. And for cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, they might be bound to hear them, but that doesn’t mean they are bound to give them a full hearing. They should at least be able to say “we reject this case because it claims SC has original jurisdiction but that claim is invalid”, or even to reject it as baseless without a hearing if the plea doesn’t have any merit.
“The military is the only way.” As they are now all being programmed by CRT, as the nation’s children are.
That’s going to work out just fine.
Clean your fire arms and by practiced.
His writings should be treated with a high degree of skepticism prior to extensive verification.
same can be said of your writings nes pa?
Re: 38 - Perhaps. But I didn’t steal millions of dollars from clients and serve time in Federal prison.
>>Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
That usurpation of power by Marshall — judicial review — has proven to be one of most serious threats to liberty in the history of the United States, rivaling only the infiltration of Marxist doctrine into our mores (which, more than likely, was provided an avenue for infiltration by Marshall’s usurpation.) Thomas Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court had been given (or, had given itself) too much power:
“I cannot lay down my pen without recurring to one of the subjects of my former letter, for in truth there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” [To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Andrew A. Lipscomb, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15.” Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903]
More specifically, he warned:
“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes.” [To Judge Spencer Roane, Poplar Forest, September 6, 1819, in Ibid. p.213]
Since Marshall’s usurpation, the Court has gradually eroded away our Christian heritage, our rights to property, and our liberty in general, or, as Madison warned:
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” [James Madison, “Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention in Defense of the Constitution.” Elliot Debates, June 6, 1788]
In case you have not noticed, of late the encroachments have been increasingly more violent by the left. But, in compliance with Saul Alinsky’s rules, the left blames all violence on the right. They, themselves, are “squeaky clean,” to anyone foolish enough to believe their rhetoric.
For the record, Alexander Hamilton was the probably the first crony-capitalist to serve in our government. He was a greedy, filthy-minded man, who was admired by John Marshall, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and other self-serving crony capitalists.
>>Marshall would have none of that. Which is why Marbury was not made much of until so-called progressives finally managed to make their lies and usurpations stick in the first half of the 20th century.
Not necessarily. According to Murray Rothbard, Marshall’s goal was to “make the Constitution more elastic so as to permit wider extension of federal power, his very distrust of the Constitution itself and insistence upon incorporating a Bill of Rights.”
To those unfamiliar with the term “incorporation,” it was, in effect, a transfer of power from the states to the federal government, or, in other words, anti-republicanism.
>>>>Additionally, in Marbury Marshall expressly noted that others in other departments take the same oath.
>>”So if it is worse than a solemn mockery to require Justices to take such an oath but then close their eyes to the Constitution and see only statute then what is it to require others to take such an oath but then close their eyes to the Constitution and see only the opinions of the Court?’
This is a direct quote from Marbury vs. Madison according to Cornell Law School:
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.” [John Marshall, in U. S. Supreme Court, “Supreme Court Opinion 1805 Marbury v. Madison.” Cornell Law, 5 U.S. 137, 1805]
One would think from reading that statement that Marshall was a strict-constructionist in the mold of Jefferson; but no, he was an anti-constitutionalist. He was a member of the so-called “Federalist” party which, from the beginning, was anti-constitutional, anti-federalist, and, therefore, anti-republican.
Mr. Kalamata
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.