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

To: rustbucket
You are forgetting all the rulings of the 9th Circus and other federal courts about Constitutional issues.

But if the Circuit Court declares something to be Constitutional then how can the Supreme Court rule that they were wrong? Perhaps it's because the Constitution gives only the Supreme Court that power? Huh? Ya think? The circuit court may rule on the legality of the issue but their opinion can be tossed right out the window if the Supreme Court decides differently. Since there is no court higher than the Supreme Court then I guess that means that their word on what is constitutional and what is not is the final one.

What are you smoking? The only rights and powers not designated in the Constitution are those reserved to the people or the states. The Constitution doesn't say that the President can pass laws by himself either. Does that mean he can?

What an idiotic question. The Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress, which you would know if you had ever read it. So of course the President cannot pass laws by himself, any more than a single justice can decide the constitutionality of an issue. But the Constitution does not say that only congess can suspend habeas corpus. It only gives the conditions under which it can be suspended, not who can do the suspending.

334 posted on 12/07/2005 6:26:50 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
But if the Circuit Court declares something to be Constitutional then how can the Supreme Court rule that they were wrong?

By an appeal to the Supreme Court. As I remember, there are only a few state-vs-state sorts of things or the like that go directly to the Supreme Court. All else comes to them by appeal.

What an idiotic question. The Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress, which you would know if you had ever read it. So of course the President cannot pass laws by himself, any more than a single justice can decide the constitutionality of an issue.

Idiotic, huh? All legislative power is vested in Congress. So how come Lincoln did things that were clearly Congress's responsibility under the Constitution? Lincoln violated the Constitution in so doing and no amount of Bill Clintoning you do can get around that fact. But you'll keep trying, eh? You're a regular Energizer Lincoln.

But the Constitution does not say that only congess can suspend habeas corpus. It only gives the conditions under which it can be suspended, not who can do the suspending.

The Constitution does not grant the power to suspend habeas corpus to the president. Show me where it does and where it give the president the power to take over duties of the other branches of government, i.e., usurp the responsibilities of Congress and the courts.

As James Madison, Father of the Constitution said in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Am I to take it that you are for tyranny? Scratch that question -- I already know the answer.

335 posted on 12/07/2005 7:50:23 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | 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