CDZ #1 Issue in the election for POTUS in 2016:

[Wry Catcher]

Democracy, Plutocracy or Theocracy.

The Next President will likely appoint several new Justices of the Supreme Court.

Will our elected officials be influenced by the Special Interests to rule in their favor, as we saw in both Citizens United 5-4 decisions?

Or will liberty interests dominate, putting bigotry aside and keeping Jefferson's promise that all men and women are created equal before the law, and have rights unalienable (as we saw in DOMA & Prop 8 rulings)?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democracy, Plutocracy or Theocracy.

The Next President will likely appoint several new Justices of the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the most important issue.

Will our elected officials be influenced by the Special Interests to rule in their favor

If a Democrat is elected, that is guaranteed.

Or will liberty interests dominate, putting bigotry aside and keeping Jefferson's promise that all men and women are created equal before the law

Except those, as the Democrats interpret it, that are more equal then others.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Democracy, Plutocracy or Theocracy.

The Next President will likely appoint several new Justices of the Supreme Court.

Will our elected officials be influenced by the Special Interests to rule in their favor, as we saw in both Citizens United 5-4 decisions?

Or will liberty interests dominate, putting bigotry aside and keeping Jefferson's promise that all men and women are created equal before the law, and have rights unalienable (as we saw in DOMA & Prop 8 rulings)?

The number "ONE" issue facing the next president is "getting this once great nation back on her feet". We all know that the judicial system is corrupt, and likely will remain corrupt. The Supreme Court is a joke. Yes, the next president will do as others before him have done, select the ones he favors, and the ones more likely to agree with him/her. What else do you expect to happen? What else can any of us expect to happen?

Think about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have 4.75 justices already committed to Progressive Fascism, a despotic rule of government smothering individual liberty every chance it gets. We cannot and will not survive trading Alito, Thomas or Scalia for a Progressive.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democracy, Plutocracy or Theocracy.

The Next President will likely appoint several new Justices of the Supreme Court.

Will our elected officials be influenced by the Special Interests to rule in their favor, as we saw in both Citizens United 5-4 decisions?

Or will liberty interests dominate, putting bigotry aside and keeping Jefferson's promise that all men and women are created equal before the law, and have rights unalienable (as we saw in DOMA & Prop 8 rulings)?

The number "ONE" issue facing the next president is "getting this once great nation back on her feet". We all know that the judicial system is corrupt, and likely will remain corrupt. The Supreme Court is a joke. Yes, the next president will do as others before him have done, select the ones he favors, and the ones more likely to agree with him/her. What else do you expect to happen? What else can any of us expect to happen?

Think about it.

I "expect" nothing. Too many variables.

But it's clear the level of anger is rising.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What was the tipping point for you B_K? Why was the Court acceptable when Heller came down, but not when SSM and Health Care Reform was ruled Constitutional, if it ever was acceptable for you?

I've always felt that the S. Court needed to have a code of ethics, something which guides ever other judge/justice/trier of facts in America.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What was the tipping point for you B_K? Why was the Court acceptable when Heller came down, but not when SSM and Health Care Reform was ruled Constitutional

Easy. Because some rulings are correct, and some are not.

I've always felt that the S. Court needed to have a code of ethics, something which guides ever other judge/justice/trier of facts in America.

SCOTUS is supposed to be non-political, only issuing rulings based upon the language of the Constitution, which without the usual "interpretation" and verbal obfuscation is a pretty easy document to understand.

That, however, has NEVER been the case, particularly since Marbury v. Madison. SCOTUS is as political as the other two branches.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What was the tipping point for you B_K? Why was the Court acceptable when Heller came down, but not when SSM and Health Care Reform was ruled Constitutional

Easy. Because some rulings are correct, and some are not.

I've always felt that the S. Court needed to have a code of ethics, something which guides ever other judge/justice/trier of facts in America.

SCOTUS is supposed to be non-political, only issuing rulings based upon the language of the Constitution, which without the usual "interpretation" and verbal obfuscation is a pretty easy document to understand.

That, however, has NEVER been the case, particularly since Marbury v. Madison. SCOTUS is as political as the other two branches.

A solution would require a Constitutional Amendment, thus the Q. in the OP remains relevant.

That the S. Ct. has always been political, is true. However, has it ever been as partisan and ideological as it is today?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A solution would require a Constitutional Amendment, thus the Q. in the OP remains relevant.

No legislation or amendment can dictate individual conscience or personal ideology. You are still at the mercy of choosing honest men and women. Justices would still vote as they will.

That the S. Ct. has always been political, is true. However, has it ever been as partisan and ideological as it is today?

We have not as a nation been this divided since 1860. It affects everything.

 

[jwoodie]

The Constitution explicitly provides for an Amendment process, yet "liberals" view this as the Devil's workshop. This is because it undermines their preference for unelected political appointees handing down binding edicts in accordance with their personal viewpoints.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Constitution explicitly provides for an Amendment process, yet "liberals" view this as the Devil's workshop. This is because it undermines their preference for unelected political appointees handing down binding edicts in accordance with their personal viewpoints.

Yes, Art V does provide for an Amendment process. Now, think for a moment about the Amendments already in existence and answer this question:

Do the following amendments reflect the desire of conservatives or liberals:

• 13, outlawing slavery
• 14, Sec 1 making former slaves born here citizens
• 15, giving the right of citizens the right to vote
• 19, giving women the right to vote
• 24, outlawing the Poll tax

liberals supported the equal rights amendment, and conservatives opposed it.

And, btw, read section 2 of Art. II, clause 1 and consider this question:

If the president can require the opinions on any subjects from the principle officer in each of his executive departments, does it not follow they he can delegate the responsibility to such principle officer the power to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of his or her duties?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Constitution explicitly provides for an Amendment process, yet "liberals" view this as the Devil's workshop. This is because it undermines their preference for unelected political appointees handing down binding edicts in accordance with their personal viewpoints.

FDR negated the Amendment process

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do the following amendments reflect the desire of conservatives or liberals:

• 13, outlawing slavery -- Conservatives, Democrats fought a war to keep their slaves
• 14, Sec 1 making former slaves born here citizens, Conservatives
• 15, giving the right of citizens the right to vote - Liberals, they've been steadily degrading the right to vote ever since, illegals and the non-living make up the majority of the Democrat base
• 19, giving women the right to vote -- Conservatives
• 24, outlawing the Poll tax, see 15 above, the same Liberals want to establish a poll tax on owning guns

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do the following amendments reflect the desire of conservatives or liberals:

• 13, outlawing slavery -- Conservatives, Democrats fought a war to keep their slaves
• 14, Sec 1 making former slaves born here citizens, Conservatives
• 15, giving the right of citizens the right to vote - Liberals, they've been steadily degrading the right to vote ever since, illegals and the non-living make up the majority of the Democrat base
• 19, giving women the right to vote -- Conservatives
• 24, outlawing the Poll tax, see 15 above, the same Liberals want to establish a poll tax on owning guns

LOL, a wonderful idiot-gram wrapped in The BIG LIE!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do the following amendments reflect the desire of conservatives or liberals:

• 13, outlawing slavery -- Conservatives, Democrats fought a war to keep their slaves
• 14, Sec 1 making former slaves born here citizens, Conservatives
• 15, giving the right of citizens the right to vote - Liberals, they've been steadily degrading the right to vote ever since, illegals and the non-living make up the majority of the Democrat base
• 19, giving women the right to vote -- Conservatives
• 24, outlawing the Poll tax, see 15 above, the same Liberals want to establish a poll tax on owning guns

LOL, a wonderful idiot-gram wrapped in The BIG LIE!

Please respond rationally to the following part of my post you choose to censor:

"liberals supported the equal rights amendment, and conservatives opposed it."

And, btw, read section 2 of Art. II, clause 1 and consider this question:

"If the president can require the opinions on any subjects from the principle officer in each of his executive departments, does it not follow they he can delegate the responsibility to such principle officer the power to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of his or her duties?"

The hardest part will be for CF to answer the questions rationally. I don't know if that is possible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do the following amendments reflect the desire of conservatives or liberals:

• 13, outlawing slavery -- Conservatives, Democrats fought a war to keep their slaves
• 14, Sec 1 making former slaves born here citizens, Conservatives
• 15, giving the right of citizens the right to vote - Liberals, they've been steadily degrading the right to vote ever since, illegals and the non-living make up the majority of the Democrat base
• 19, giving women the right to vote -- Conservatives
• 24, outlawing the Poll tax, see 15 above, the same Liberals want to establish a poll tax on owning guns

LOL, a wonderful idiot-gram wrapped in The BIG LIE!

Please respond rationally to the following part of my post you choose to censor:

"liberals supported the equal rights amendment, and conservatives opposed it."

And, btw, read section 2 of Art. II, clause 1 and consider this question:

"If the president can require the opinions on any subjects from the principle officer in each of his executive departments, does it not follow they he can delegate the responsibility to such principle officer the power to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of his or her duties?"

The hardest part will be for CF to answer the questions rationally. I don't know if that is possible.

"At the Democratic National Convention in 1960, a proposal to endorse the ERA was rejected after it met explicit opposition from liberal groups including labor unions, AFL-CIO, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), American Federation of Teachers, American Nurses Association, the Women's Division of the Methodist Church, and the National Councils of Jewish, Catholic, and Negro Women."

Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

As to your question, as long as they stay within the bounds of the Constitution, the original one not the Liberal Constitution 2.0, they can promulgate rules and regulations. When they start writing laws, they have breached their role

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do the following amendments reflect the desire of conservatives or liberals:

• 13, outlawing slavery CONSERVATIVES
  
• 14, Sec 1 making former slaves born here citizens CONSERVATIVES
  
• 15, giving the right of citizens the right to vote CONSERVATIVES
  
• 19, giving women the right to vote CONSERVATIVES
  
• 24, outlawing the Poll tax CONSERVATIVES

liberals supported the equal rights amendment, and conservatives opposed it.

Indeed, it was paleo-feminist nonsense.

And, btw, read section 2 of Art. II, clause 1 and consider this question:

If the president can require the opinions on any subjects from the principle officer in each of his executive departments, does it not follow they he can delegate the responsibility to such principle officer the power to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of his or her duties?

Presidential power cannot be so delegated. Secretaries may act on behalf of the president under his authority, but may not act with autonomous presidential powers.