[quote]JEATON wrote:
You’re going to sweep Paul into the Presidency. [/quote]
A Tsunami couldn’t sweep Paul into the Presidency.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Huh? Paul really isn’t my go to candidate but I can say that I like his stance on illegal immigration and that is ridiculous for you to say.
[/quote]
So you like what he said about the fence being designed to keep Americans in? Like whatever you want but don’t try to tell me Ron Paul is a conservative.[/quote]
So you’re saying a fence doesn’t work both ways.
You’re an idiot.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Really…the We the People Act shouldn’t even have to be passed. It IS already built into the Constitution.[/quote]
If so, is it just silly…or political hypocrisy?
Since Marbury v. Madison, can Congress limit the purview of the Supreme Court?
[/quote]
Although Marbury is a landmark case that is recognized to this day there are some valid criticisms of it.
Also, although it of course firmly established judicial review I’m not too sure it does, or even has the power to, limit Congress’ purview of the Supreme Court.
The Court would have to have jurisdiction. If the Congress constitutionally and specifically limited its jurisdiction then the answer it is not I that would deny an individual’s right to petition for his (federal) rights against a state power BUT the law of the land.
I don’t see how it would. Explain your concerns.
Why?
Hallelujah! Yes!
No, it’s not. As I said, Congress is a pansy ass institution that has ceded much of its power to the courts and the executive branch. They’ve allowed the other two branches to run roughshod over its inherent constitutional power and again they have willingly handed it over as well.
Part of the reason for that is the sheer size of the federal government. It is so gargantuan that Congress cannot possibly oversee it to the extent that Madison et al envisioned. That too is the fault of Congress. It passed the laws of enlargement and it funds the largesse.[/quote]
Push,
I gotta say, in this post and your follow up, you really knocked it out of the park. I have delayed in commenting as not to detract from your commentary due to a barrage of “Paulbot” cries. You gave me come “rabbit holes” to follow for a few days.
[/quote]
Sorry about this, but even a Santa Claus’ helper knows that neither the Executive nor Congress can constitutionally abrogate the right to judicial review of the law. (I am open to review a solid precedent, if you have one. Congress may re-write a law deemed unconstitutional, but it cannot pre-emptively disallow the judgment of the courts.)
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]
Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]
Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.[/quote]
Incomprehensible double talk, but I note:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]
Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.[/quote]
Incomprehensible double talk, but I note:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]
Errrrryyyyyyooooonnnnnnne!
States, the executive, municipalities, juries.
Nullification, sniff.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]
Everyone is protected by the constitution so therefore everyone makes judgment of it otherwise we cannot have this conversation.
Quit trying to sound smart and go back to medicine or whatever antiquated hocus-pocus it is you practice.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]
Everyone is protected by the constitution so therefore everyone makes judgment of it otherwise we cannot have this conversation.
Quit trying to sound smart and go back to medicine or whatever antiquated hocus-pocus it is you practice.[/quote]
So sorry to strain your mental capacity. but how can everyone be a self-appointed judge of the law and make their own judgments on the universally applicable laws, and make them apply to others?
Why do you hate the Constitution, which has become quite clear on the question?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So sorry to strain your mental capacity. but how can everyone be a self-appointed judge of the law and make their own judgments on the universally applicable laws, and make them apply to others?
Why do you hate the Constitution, which has become quite clear on the question?[/quote]
Oh jeez…yer a flappin’ idiot.
How can anyone have an opinion about anything without making a judgment first?
You are making judgments about constitutionality and yet you are no legally appointed judge.
In fact, in order to amend the constitution people that are not judges must “judge” what constitutionality means. The framers were no judges either.
GTFO you pompous jackass.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So sorry to strain your mental capacity. but how can everyone be a self-appointed judge of the law and make their own judgments on the universally applicable laws, and make them apply to others?
Why do you hate the Constitution, which has become quite clear on the question?[/quote]
Oh jeez…yer a flappin’ idiot.
How can anyone have an opinion about anything without making a judgment first?
You are making judgments about constitutionality and yet you are no legally appointed judge.
In fact, in order to amend the constitution people that are not judges must “judge” what constitutionality means. The framers were no judges either.
GTFO you pompous jackass.[/quote]
Oh…I see. You really can’t form a coherent thought.
You can return to your role in the banking industry now.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]
Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.[/quote]
Incomprehensible double talk, but I note:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]
Errrrryyyyyyooooonnnnnnne!
States, the executive, municipalities, juries.
Nullification, sniff.[/quote]
You entirely misunderstand the question. The States and the Executives, etc. cannot be judges of the law. They are all constrained to follow it and they cannot remove the right of judicial review as the “final arbiter.” I repeat myself, but some points deserve repeating, and some readers need tireless instruction in the facts.
Your question is irrelevant. If law violates individual liberties (which supersede the constitution) then it must be unconstitutional and therefore amended or ignored – viz., nullification.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Your question is irrelevant. If law violates individual liberties (which supersede the constitution) then it must be unconstitutional and therefore amended or ignored – viz., nullification.[/quote]
No, sorry, the question was entirely relevant to the initial posting on Dr. Paul’s “We The People Farce.”
A law passed by Congress cannot abrogate itself from judicial review.
What is irrelevant,however is your extralegal and extraconstitutional prattle, which, frankly, is not worth my time to answer politely.
Really, banking must be your special skill.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]
Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.[/quote]
Incomprehensible double talk, but I note:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]
Errrrryyyyyyooooonnnnnnne!
States, the executive, municipalities, juries.
Nullification, sniff.[/quote]
You entirely misunderstand the question. The States and the Executives, etc. cannot be judges of the law. They are all constrained to follow it and they cannot remove the right of judicial review as the “final arbiter.” I repeat myself, but some points deserve repeating, and some readers need tireless instruction in the facts.
[/quote]
Oh hell yes they can.
If they get the order to enforce an unconstitutional law, they, bear with me here, just dont.
The SCOTUS under Marshall invented its supremacy when it comes to interpreting the constitution out of thin air.
See the SCOTUS on the Fugitive Slave Act and “liberty laws” and the states and peoples reaction to it.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Really, banking must be your special skill.[/quote]
No, it isn’t but that is also irrelevant.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]
Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.[/quote]
Incomprehensible double talk, but I note:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]
Errrrryyyyyyooooonnnnnnne!
States, the executive, municipalities, juries.
Nullification, sniff.[/quote]
You entirely misunderstand the question. The States and the Executives, etc. cannot be judges of the law. They are all constrained to follow it and they cannot remove the right of judicial review as the “final arbiter.” I repeat myself, but some points deserve repeating, and some readers need tireless instruction in the facts.
[/quote]
Oh hell yes they can.
If they get the order to enforce an unconstitutional law, they, bear with me here, just dont.
The SCOTUS under Marshall invented its supremacy when it comes to interpreting the constitution out of thin air.
See the SCOTUS on the Fugitive Slave Act and “liberty laws” and the states and peoples reaction to it. [/quote]
Thanks, once again, for proving my point.
None of these laws removed themselves from SC review.
The Congress or States can re-write laws with the information of the SC judgment, but it cannot prevent the SC from review on appeal by parties with standing.
Thanks so much. Next time read me carefully and save yourself the strained synapses.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]
Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.[/quote]
Incomprehensible double talk, but I note:
Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]
Errrrryyyyyyooooonnnnnnne!
States, the executive, municipalities, juries.
Nullification, sniff.[/quote]
You entirely misunderstand the question. The States and the Executives, etc. cannot be judges of the law. They are all constrained to follow it and they cannot remove the right of judicial review as the “final arbiter.” I repeat myself, but some points deserve repeating, and some readers need tireless instruction in the facts.
[/quote]
Oh hell yes they can.
If they get the order to enforce an unconstitutional law, they, bear with me here, just dont.
The SCOTUS under Marshall invented its supremacy when it comes to interpreting the constitution out of thin air.
See the SCOTUS on the Fugitive Slave Act and “liberty laws” and the states and peoples reaction to it. [/quote]
Thanks, once again, for proving my point.
None of these laws removed themselves from SC review.
The Congress or States can re-write laws with the information of the SC judgment, but it cannot prevent the SC from review on appeal by parties with standing.
Thanks so much. Next time read me carefully and save yourself the strained synapses.[/quote]
Well yes, the SC can voice an opinion.
So can you, I and the cookie monster.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t think Doc quite understands my position. It’s not as strident as it may appear.
I do think Congress would have to carefully craft its legislation and I’m not saying the USSC could have its hands completely tied.
My point is I do not think the USSC was originally framed to be quite the oligarchy that it is now and has been for some time.[/quote]
Understood implicitly.
If judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder, how does the beholder respond and still respect the rights of the beholden?
It is not, as Dr Paul intimates, by preventing judicial review of law. (However questionable the principle is among legal scholars, it still has not been successfully challenged in over 200 years. Neither of us want the Executive to have that right, and I do not want Congress to prevent “the redress of grievances” in a court of law.)
Perhaps judicial activism is restrained by carefully crafted legislation, or better, by the judges themselves. So when someone argues their ideologic purity, and doesn’t vote, and Mr Obama is elected to another 4 years–with no electoral restraints on his actions–let that someone not act all disappointed when he appoints 3 more Sotomayors or Kagans to the bench.