[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

QUEEN SCOUTS RULES

..:: WE WILL ROCK YOU ::..

 

Aah

Buddy you're a baby make a big noise

Playin' in the womb gonna be a big man some day

You got ULTRASOUND on yo' face

You big disgrace

Abort'n your can all over the place

Singin'

 

We will we will ABORT you

We will we will ABORT you

 

Buddy you're a young man hard man

Shouting in the street gonna take on the world some day

You got blood on yo' face

You big disgrace

Freep'n your FLAG all over the place

 

We will we will RULE you

Sing it

We will we will RULE you

 

Buddy you're an old man poor man

Pleadin' with your eyes gonna make

You some peace some day

You got mud on your face

Big disgrace

Somebody betta EUTHANIZE you into your place

 

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

Sing it

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

Everybody

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

Alright

 

We are the RULERS - my friends

And we'll keep on LEGISLATING

Till the end

We are the RULERS

We are the RULERS

No time for losers

'Cause we are the RULERS of the World

 

Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic An Interview With Ron Paul, SierraTimes.com, 05. 23. 03

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - JUDICIARY

[Marauder]

Our founding fathers were some of the most intelligent men ever assembled in such a number, and the foresight they had in crafting this government was phenomenal to say the least.

But I believe the one mistake they made was that when the Constitution was drafted, their experience taught them that judges were among the most honorable men available and could be counted on to discharge their duty with integrity and wisdom. That was probably true then.

But not now. Today's judges, e.g., those idiots in the Ninth Circus in CA, and some of the flaming liberals on the SCOTUS - Ginsberg, Souter, and Kennedy come to mind - have shown us the dire need for some sort of control, to rein in those that are becoming derelict in their duty in creating new law out of whole cloth.

[pgyanke]

It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin.

This could never happen. It's just impossible. Who would vote for someone who was against the principles on which this country was founded? As long as our leaders are fiscally savvy, they can have any views they want on social issues, right? We don't have to worry about our cultural heritage as long as the budget is balanced, right?

Oh yeah, don't forget to vote for (R)nold...

[Texas_Jarhead]

"The second flaw in living constitutionalism is that, if the Constitution is an endlessly changing document, it is unclear why its provisions authorizing judicial power should be considered sacred and permanent. In its aggressive assertions on behalf of a living Constitution, the Court runs the risk of undermining the principled basis of its own authority. It may find, as Professor Bickel warned long ago, that it has no ground on which to stand."

[zeugma]

Bump for later read.

[You Dirty Rats]

The depressing thing is that Warren was appointed by Ike, Blackmun and Powell by Nixon, O'Connor & Kennedy by Reagan, and Souter by Bush.

The big disaster was not confirming Bork. We can blame (Ted) Kennedy, Leahy, Biden and Metzenbaum all we want, but the nomination was lost when Arlen Specter turned against Bork. Once Bork was voted down (back in the days when the Senate actually voted on candidates who respect the Constitution), the failed Ginsberg nomination was followed up by Kennedy. Kennedy was viewed with suspicion at the time, and so was Souter later.

I HATE ACTIVIST JUSTICES!!!

[Quix]

BUMP FOR REF

[Bonaparte]

Justice Oliver Holmes, Father of Judicial Excess, and his prize protege, Alger Hiss

[Quix]

VERY SOBERING.

THANKS FOR THE EXCELLENT DOC AND POST.