It sure is noisy in here!

March 20, 2002 | Texasforever

[GeronL]

Balance of Powers are what the founding fathers wanted, you don't believe in it.

Lets continue the debate on the courts here

[nopardons]

Gee, if I were you, I wouldn't get any sleep at all, either, thinking about NONEXISTANT white guys, who weren't here in the 1500's ( that's when the 16th century was ! ) , fighting King George III, who hadn't even been born yet , giving up their lives for nothing . : ^ )

[over3Owithabrain]

Far TOO many FREEPERS don't belong here. They have absolutely NO idea what politics and governance entails. Neither have they managed to learn anything, during their stay here; no matter how long, or how little. To top that off, they would rather have the House, Senate, and the White House controled by Dems, and cry in their beer. That's NOT what I want

You know, that really is a ridiculous statement - elitist, catty and self-serving. This is a great forum for varying points of view. Agree or disagree on the merits of a debate. You may fancy yourself an intellectual giant amongst the little people around here, but people who are truly secure in their knowledge don't betray it by displaying this kind of attitude.

[Texasforever]

Later courts may overturn a decision which was unconstitutional, yet mistakenly ruled constitutional by a biased Court. Every law is not constitutional once passed, signed, and approved.

They certainly can but until a new court rules differently the law is in place and enforced and by definition constitutional. Not right or wrong just that it had followed the constitutional process. Their is no criminal jeopardy against those that pass and sign laws within the boundaries of the process laid out in the constitution that the court deems unconstitutional. Some may argue that there should be but the Founders did not agree.

[RamsNo1]

Does that give the legislature the right to ignore constitutionality because they know it will go to the courts anyway so why bother? That means the legislators are feigning ignorance and not fully and appropriately performing their duties as elected officials. If they know that it will go to the courts anyway than what do these legislators do all day long but listen to their own drivvle even if it makes no sense, which it doesn't most of the time.

[Pistias]

Don't bother.

[RamsNo1]

I already apologized for being in the wrong century. If that is the best post you could come up with, it is pretty lame.

[Texasforever]

Balance of Powers are what the founding fathers wanted, you don't believe in it.

On the contray, I have been talking exclusively about the balance of powers. It is you that does not understand it. The Congress writes the laws, The executive swears to uphold the laws and the judiciary sits in judgment on the laws. It works well.

[Pistias]

law is in place and enforced and by definition constitutional

I'm not sure if we're playing semantics here, but it looks to me like your statment prima faciae assumes that the Court's approval makes a thing constitutional, which is in the "absolute" sense absurd--a Court claiming that a law mandating the execution of everyone past childbearing age was constitutional would not make that law in accord with the constitution. Of course, the Court upholding a law means the law is still binding on us, and thus that we must obey it or break it and present ourselves for trial and punishment to give the matter another hearing.

[GeronL]

One branch cannot sit in judgement of another. That would make the courts the government, and thats wrong. It was never meant that way.

[gratefulwharffratt]

I have supported Bush since he first ran for governor of Texas. But I am so blazing mad that I can't support anyone next time around.

Folks, I smell a seminar caller.

Executing assigned Disruptor Detection Duties flawlessly...

[wardaddy]

There were a few white guys here in the 1500s ...Spanish and French mainly and they were too busy saving their scalps to worry about lofty ideals like Constitutions and Revolting against wiggy Kings. I bet they were expedient though..LOL

Good Night...

[Texasforever]

If they know that it will go to the courts anyway than what do these legislators do all day long but listen to their own drivvle even if it makes no sense, which it doesn't most of the time.

I can't argue with that. LOL But the fact remains, the constitution invests law making powers with elected representatives. They have the constitutional authority to pass about anything they want with one exception, they cannot pass a law whose substance has been already deemed unconstitutional by the court. That is why many are convinced the CFR will be substantially pruned since to court has spoken on similar items in the past. Precedent is sacred in the courts.

[nopardons]

If Texasforever is a " dying breed ", because he supports President Bush, then the next president will be Dick Gephart, Hilary Clinton, Al Sharpton. one of the Kerrys , or some other Dem, we dont know ablout yet. Happy now ? Pleased as punch are you ?

Tell me, dear, since you have such depth of perception, just how badly is President Bush going to lose by and who will be the next president ? Surely, you do know that, don't you ? The election is only two + years away, the president has close to an 80 % approval rating now,but the American public has such a short attention span, and most dont pay anywhere near as much attention to things as FREEPERS do , so ... what is going to change their minds ?

Oh yes, and have you taken a poll on this ? How do you KNOW that the majority of people have decided that President Bush is worthy of abandoning ... hmmmmm ?

[GeronL]

btw- Are you listening to the Charley Jones show??

[gratefulwharffratt]

It's people like you and Bush who allow our liberties to be dwindled away because of a lack of moral fiber and inability to take a stand for what is right no matter the cost.

I hope your not really that freaking stupid...

Oh wait, you are.

[Texasforever]

a Court claiming that a law mandating the execution of everyone past childbearing age was constitutional would not make that law in accord with the constitution. Of course, the Court upholding a law means the law is still binding on us, and thus that we must obey it or break it and present ourselves for trial and punishment to give the matter another hearing.

Look, that is what I mean the hyperbole. IF we ever get a court that says that the this entire argument is moot. At that point there is no constitution there is just every man for himself. Now, I did NOT say that the law was good or bad but that it was passed, signed and put into enforcement within the constitutional framework the founders provided. The last step in that process is the right of the people to redress their grievances in the courts when that law causes the injury.

[Texasforever]

btw- Are you listening to the Charley Jones show??

Never heard of him.

[nopardons]

President Bush is trying to do that now, or haven't you been keeping up ? I DID mention that in my post. : - )

[gratefulwharffratt]

I read this 8 times and I still don't get how 245i gives amnesty to illegals who weren't legally here in the first place.

How dare you bother to bring logic and comprehension into this!!

Can't you see that many here are too busy with the orgy of Bush Bashing to be trifled with such things??