Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exodus
"A judge, one man, decided that Congress and the President didn't violate the law when the President went to war on his own. That judge has no business deciding that this case didn't merit consideration. Deciding whether a case has merit is the job of a Grand Jury, not of any judge. I am also one man, and I say that our law has been violated. "

Repeatedly these kind of challenges have been dismissed. If they were serious challenges, pressure would have come to bare to accept these cases. That’s how the Constitution has established the courts. I don’t think it establishes Grand Juries as arbitrators on constitutionality as you claim. Yes, you are one man, but I can’t take you seriously any longer. Best regards…

57 posted on 03/01/2003 6:21:15 PM PST by elfman2 on another computer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: elfman2 on another computer

Repeatedly these kind of challenges have been dismissed. If they were serious challenges, pressure would have come to bare to accept these cases. That’s how the Constitution has established the courts.
**********************

Not true, elfman2.

Here's a glaring example to disputes your statement; the National government daily infringes our right to own and carry weapons. There has not been one case taken to decide the Constitutionality of our national gun laws.

No judge will not accept any serious challenge to our national government. Judges are politicians. Judges are members of our government, just like any other government worker. Their interests lie with the people who sign their paychecks, not with us. Unless jurors stop taking their direction from judges, our slide into totalitarianism will continue.

60 posted on 03/01/2003 6:39:55 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: elfman2 on another computer
exodus - "A judge, one man, decided that Congress and the President didn't violate the law when the President went to war on his own. That judge has no business deciding that this case didn't merit consideration. Deciding whether a case has merit is the job of a Grand Jury, not of any judge. I am also one man, and I say that our law has been violated."
elfman2 - I don’t think it establishes Grand Juries as arbitrators on constitutionality as you claim. Yes, you are one man, but I can’t take you seriously any longer. Best regards…
**********************

That statement doesn't bode well for your understanding of the Constitution.

I didn't say that a Grand Jury should decide the Constitutionality of law. I said that a Grand Jury should decide what cases have merit; which cases should be heard in a court of law.

A judge's duty is to preside over the Court, not to decide which case is allowed into his courtroom. That decision is the responsibility of a Grand Jury.

63 posted on 03/01/2003 6:55:17 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson