To: Robert_Paulson2
Moore claimed that as an expense. He said half went to experts and consultants, and the other half to the legal end. Thats enough to pay 62 lawyers a million dollars each, and to pay 62 experts a million dollars each.
All of that came from the taxpayers of Alabama, if you believe Moore.
16 posted on
08/15/2003 4:36:35 PM PDT by
Chancellor Palpatine
("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
He said half went to experts and consultants,
I wonder how many of them worked for Coral Ridge Ministries or TBN associates of jay sekelow?
21 posted on
08/15/2003 4:50:11 PM PDT by
Robert_Paulson2
(winning is not everything... it's the only thing. if you don't win, you cannot govern.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
2. ORIGINAL INTENT: THE FRAMERS DID NOT INTEND THE SUPREME COURT TO BE THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
- The doctrine of original intent holds that the legislature--not the judiciary--is the "predominant" branch5; that the judiciary was the "weakest" of the three branches of government.6 To the Founders, the opinion that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional issues was "never proper,"7 and a "dangerous doctrine"8 which would lead to the judiciary becoming a "despotic branch."9 They were concerned that the federal judiciary would usurp all the powers from the States.10 This was the system of checks and balances implemented in the Constitution. Recall the Dred Scott decision in 185711 wherein the Supreme Court held that "a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a state of the United States." In other words, black slaves were not "persons" protected by the laws of the United States. In a collision of the federal branches, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the Congress passed the 13th amendment. Lincoln disregarded the Dred Scott decision because he did not wish to resign the future of the country "into the hands of that eminent tribunal."12 In other words, a century ago, our leaders believed that both the President and Congress had the Constitutional authority to pass "constitutional" laws or orders without waiting for Supreme Court review. And the President and Congress could disregard or overrule Supreme Court decisions that were contrary to natural law, like the Dred Scott decision, by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and by passing the 13th Amendment, respectively. This was the original intent of the Framers concerning the checks and balances of our national government. Imagine the Dred Scott Court in the late 1800's declaring the Emancipation Proclamation "unconstitutional" or that the 13th amendment was not a "proper exercise" of Congress' powers.
Source
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson