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

Skip to comments.

Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 7, 2003

Posted on 07/07/2003 7:00:07 AM PDT by mrobison

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 581-582 next last
To: freedomsnotfree
Yeah, I'm saying all of that stuff. I'm not going to find a perfect politician, so I'll accept the lesser of two evils, up to a point.


401 posted on 07/07/2003 4:36:30 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
The more I think about this, the more astounded I am.

Me Too... They apparently don't fear impeachment.

402 posted on 07/07/2003 4:45:15 PM PDT by SteamShovel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Consort
"It's you, who put your hero worship ideology ahead of the country."


And you accuse me of being backwards? You never heard me refer to anyone as my hero, and you never will, so where are you coming from?
351 -consort-


Consort then wrote, answering his own question;

"Every elected official now in office was put there by "the people who ultimately rule" as you refer to them. The people have ruled — and we have the government that resulted from that rule."


Your 'hero' is majority rule, by political parties, --- "the people who ultimately rule"..

True enough you have no 'one' hero. It is worse. Your ideology reveres the group.
366 -tpaine-



You messed up again. You should read the thread before posting. The term "the people who ultimately rule" came from Post #352, not from me. I was merely rebutting the use of the term in my reply; that's why the quotes were included.
-consort-


I left purposely left those quotes in your quoted reply.
- Yep, they did indeed show that the term "the people who ultimately rule" came from Post #352, not from you.

Now you are merely using that non-issue to avoid my point, which was;

-- True enough, you have no 'one' hero. It is worse. Your ideology reveres the group. --


403 posted on 07/07/2003 4:49:38 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

Comment #404 Removed by Moderator

To: jwalsh07; Everybody
"-- stop pretendting that the majority decision in Lawrence is Constitutionally sound --"
-jwalsh07-


Its basic 'soundness' will become evident when our individual RKBA's is finally resolved by application of those same principles.

States do NOT have the power to prohibit individual rights.
As I posted earlier at #335:

To: ExSoldier; Everybody

RIGHT NOW there is a case that is pending review brought by some well meaning folks in California and represented by a real powerhouse pro 2nd Amendment attorney named Stephen Halbrooke. I don't care how good and how dedicated he is for this issue. The timing is wrong.
-exSoldier-


The "timing" could be perfect.
-- The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'.

The 14th was ratified, in large part, to defend the RKBAs of freed slaves from the violations of the post war southern states.
-- The 14th told these states in no uncertain terms that they could not infringe upon our individual rights, without due process, - IE without "compelling state interests", ~exactly~ as this liberal court has recently held..

Thus, the justices are hoisted on their own logic by states prohibiting phony look alike 'assault weapons'.
- And also on the 14ths equal protection/immunity clauses..


The time is ripe, imo. Read this:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Address:http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/saf-hal.html
335 -tpaine-
405 posted on 07/07/2003 5:25:42 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'.

And you actually believe this?

This court will rule that the RTKABA is NOT an unfettered indidual right and you can take that to the bank.

More likely is that they, citing European precedent, rule that the citizens of this country have a TRANSCENDENT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to be FREE of all firearms.

406 posted on 07/07/2003 5:30:18 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: meyerca
You start with a petition, and you present it to a favorable US Congressman. Once the petition has an appropriate amount of signatures, the Congressman (woman) should then introduce an Impeachment motion.

407 posted on 07/07/2003 5:31:54 PM PDT by judicial meanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'."

I can't agree. Where in the 14th Amendment does it give a rational excuse for abortion? Where does it mention abortion at all? Yet this is the primary Amendment used to justify the Roe v. Wade atrocity.

Under the Full Faith and Credit clause, CCW reciprocity should be the law of the land in every state and territory in the country. But that's not the way it works, is it? In fact, as we have so trustingly accepted ever since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, the US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means. In which case we are screwed, royally.....

408 posted on 07/07/2003 5:35:26 PM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Yeah, I'm saying all of that stuff. I'm not going to find a perfect politician, so I'll accept the lesser of two evils, up to a point

The true leaders in America refuse to go into politics. Who wants to have their every move criminalized, their backgrounds investigated ad nauseum, the bones drug out of their closets, and their families maligned?

The politics of personal destruction weed out people who would do a great job and just give us self serving political pretty boys and girls who dont care a whiff about anyone but themselves

Thats why we have had to endure so-so political leaders for decades ( with the exception of Reagan)

409 posted on 07/07/2003 5:41:33 PM PDT by judicial meanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
What is the wording of the oath a Justice takes?
410 posted on 07/07/2003 5:55:37 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat (Help us elect Republicans in Kentucky! Click on my name for links to all the 2003 candidates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
[O'Connor]:"Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations which also become part of the law of the land, but I can't see the day when we won't have a constitution in our nation."

In the above quote, it sort of sounds like O'Connor is trying to contrast treaties and the U.S. Constitution, as if a treaty can usurpt the authority of the Constitution.

The power of entering into treaties is part of the Constitution, and any aspect of a treaty must be Constitutional and it must be ratified into law. The contrasting "but", in the above O'Connor quote makes it sound like O'Connor believes that treaties can override the U.S. Constitution.

Concerning Breyer, his remarks now explain his past rulings and the combination of his remarks and the past rulings now makes him deserving of impeachment.

411 posted on 07/07/2003 5:55:38 PM PDT by FreeReign (V5.0 Enterprise Edition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
What would I have done without your deep insight?

Continue to be a mind-numbed Bushbot, I suppose.

412 posted on 07/07/2003 6:02:45 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: freedomsnotfree
We agree. You posted this response to the wrong guy.
413 posted on 07/07/2003 6:04:36 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
...42 appointed Breyer

Clinton, Breyer -- two peas in a sovereignty-stealing pod.

414 posted on 07/07/2003 6:06:19 PM PDT by FreeReign (V5.0 Enterprise Edition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
Breyer's reasoning is flawed because it is up to the States to make/unmake these laws, not the SCOTUS. The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this at all. Period.

CF: Thomas' opinion. He thought the law was silly--but also agrees w/Scalia that the Supremes should butt out of Texas' affairs. Pun intended.
415 posted on 07/07/2003 6:07:25 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry; Sabertooth
and never once examine themselves to discover how their own ineptness, cowardice, slothfulness, greed, self-obsession and petty arrogance might have contributed to the decay and decadence in society and government.

Am I supposed to resemble that remark? Do letters, emails, phone calls, and ward-work count? Showing up at demonstrations? Giving the time and support necessary for the politicians I support and the ideas I espouse?

I showed up at GOP Party meetings and had to listen to a fat has-been academic who once was Governor of Wisconsin spit and drool all over himself when referring to PJBucanan--just because we, who worked for PJB, scared the bejabbers out of him and his Gummint-Lifetime-Employee RINO crowd.

Your insults are second-rate in comparison.

416 posted on 07/07/2003 6:13:39 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
To: ExSoldier; Everybody
RIGHT NOW there is a case that is pending review brought by some well meaning folks in California and represented by a real powerhouse pro 2nd Amendment attorney named Stephen Halbrooke. I don't care how good and how dedicated he is for this issue. The timing is wrong.
-exSoldier-


The "timing" could be perfect.
-- The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'.

The 14th was ratified, in large part, to defend the RKBAs of freed slaves from the violations of the post war southern states.
-- The 14th told these states in no uncertain terms that they could not infringe upon our individual rights, without due process, - IE without "compelling state interests", ~exactly~ as this liberal court has recently held..


Thus, they are hoisted on their own logic on states prohibiting phony look alike 'assault weapons'.

- And also on the 14ths equal protection/immunity clauses..


The time is ripe, imo. Read this:


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Address:http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/saf-hal.html
335 -tpaine-
_____________________________________

I can't agree. Where in the 14th Amendment does it give a rational excuse for abortion? Where does it mention abortion at all? Yet this is the primary Amendment used to justify the Roe v. Wade atrocity.
-ExS-

Abortion, like sex, is protected by our general unenumerated rights. -- Words like Life/Liberty/Property, cover a lot of specific rights.
Like a right to be left alone in the privacy of your bedroom, or your gunroom.
______________________________________


Under the Full Faith and Credit clause, CCW reciprocity should be the law of the land in every state and territory in the country. But that's not the way it works, is it? In fact, as we have so trustingly accepted ever since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, the US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means. In which case we are screwed, royally.
-ExS-


Equal protection under the 14th will also apply to CCW.

And, - you're dead wrong on the Marbury decision, -- the last sentence of which says that laws repugnant to our constitution are void.

This hardly establishes that the "US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means."


417 posted on 07/07/2003 6:14:43 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
.........and the majority of O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.

These people are supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws.......not wether the law is popular with public opinion. The Constitution Party is correct in that they should be impeached.

418 posted on 07/07/2003 6:15:19 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Abortion, like sex, is protected by our general unenumerated rights.

Cripes.

419 posted on 07/07/2003 6:18:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: logic
I don't believe that all of our millitary will go along with it, and that those who expressed any desent would end up stationed in lower Uzbekistan or some other far-flung nether region of the globe.

420 posted on 07/07/2003 6:18:59 PM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 581-582 next last

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.

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