Another Victory for Ron Paul

[Contumacious]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

HUH?

I thought the Constitution (1787) was replaced by the Welfare/Warfare state Constitution of 1935?

Am I wrong?

.

 

[Warrior102]

Ron Paul will not win the Presidential election.

Fact

 

[Contumacious]

Ron Paul will not win the Presidential election.

Fact

Concur

Fact

.

 

[Greenbeard]

Ron Paul did win that straw poll.

No mention of Jon Huntsman's surprising 2nd place finish despite being unable to attend?

 

[Samson]

Ron Paul did win that straw poll.

No mention of Jon Huntsman's surprising 2nd place finish despite being unable to attend?

Must make RINO blood run cold.

 

[bripat9643]

Case law...lol. Constitution is the law of the land, not the whims of biased men and women who have the flaws of human existence.

No it isn't ...where have you been for the last 200 years?

so, where in the constitution does it say judges interpret?

It doesn't. In fact, when the Constitution was passed, the understanding among the signatories was that states also had the right to interpret the document and nullify laws they determined it did not allow.

 

[bripat9643]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

In other words, the courts are free to twist the document to mean whatever they want it to mean. That is the ultimate Orwellian mechanism for totalitarianism.

The claim that the Constitution is "elastic" is the surest sign that the source is a bootlicking totalitarian troll.

 

[oldsalt]

Paul’s ignorance of Constitutional case law is profound, it obviously runs in the family given the son’s Civil Rights Act fiasco.

Case law...lol. Constitution is the law of the land, not the whims of biased men and women who have the flaws of human existence.

So the Constitution was written by aliens?

 

[Samson]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

that's incorrect, son. The Constitution is the law of the land, so perhaps you can cite for me where in the Constitution it says that courts interpret?

US Constitution, Article 3, section 2;

...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.....

 

[Contumacious]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

that's incorrect, son. The Constitution is the law of the land, so perhaps you can cite for me where in the Constitution it says that courts interpret?

I thought the Constitution was replaced by the M4 Carbine

.

 

[Susan45]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

that's incorrect, son. The Constitution is the law of the land, so perhaps you can cite for me where in the Constitution it says that courts interpret?

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-...

...to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

The Supreme Court was specifically set up to adjudicate disputes. I think it is very clear that is what our founders expected of them and they were the final decision.

Adjudicate - Definition of Adjudicate by Webster's Online Dictionary

It should be obvious that at times they would have to interpret what they are reading. Would you think so?

 

[Susan45]

No it isn't ...where have you been for the last 200 years?

so, where in the constitution does it say judges interpret?

It doesn't. In fact, when the Constitution was passed, the understanding among the signatories was that states also had the right to interpret the document and nullify laws they determined it did not allow.

No kidding? And just where would the rest of us get this info you are privy to, because it seems to me that our founders put everything in the constitution THEY thought was important. But you are saying we should go to another document now? And just why should we not just use the wonderful document that was voted on and approved by our forefathers?

 

[midcan5]

Paul is the libertarian version of George Wallace or Ralph Nader. Like them he is just a billboard passed on the highway of politics.

"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other." Oscar Ameringer

 

[Susan45]

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

that's incorrect, son. The Constitution is the law of the land, so perhaps you can cite for me where in the Constitution it says that courts interpret?

US Constitution, Article 3, section 2;

...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.....

You're so right. I made it much more difficult. LOL

 

[Susan45]

Paul is the libertarian version of George Wallace or Ralph Nader. Like them he is just a billboard passed on the highway of politics.

"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other." Oscar Ameringer

Yes, I agree. Plus it keeps a whole lot of people busy that might have too much time on their hands.

 

[rightwinger]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

that's incorrect, son. The Constitution is the law of the land, so perhaps you can cite for me where in the Constitution it says that courts interpret?

The Constitution itself is not the law of the land. It sets the framework in which laws may be passed. I have already cited the case which established the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution. It has beenin effect for 200 years. Just because libertarians don't like it doesn't change anything

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marbury reaffirmed the Common Law principle of the rule of law, that the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are not above the law, and the courts are therefore authorized to review laws to determine their constitutionality. The principle of the rule of law is the foundation upon which this Republic was founded, it can not exist without it, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

This is settled law, accepted by jurists from every point on the political spectrum.

[Marbury] created a model of judicial independence. It established the fundamental architecture of constitutional review. It planted the seed for the political questions doctrine, and enriched the separation of power principle through Marshall's emphasis on the distinction between ministerial acts--which judges could review--and discretionary political acts which it could or should not. And it perennially compels us to think about the evolving nature of democratic governance.

FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison

The principle of the rule of law dates back to 1215, and its elements further back then that – it is at the core of Anglo-American jurisprudence and makes legitimate all government actions. In countries where there is no respect for the rule of law we see anarchy, oppression, and despotism.

I recommend those on the far right and libertarians study Marbury and its implications, at least be knowledgeable about the legal principle you are rejecting.

The case for those interested.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Susan45]

Marbury reaffirmed the Common Law principle of the rule of law, that the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are not above the law, and the courts are therefore authorized to review laws to determine their constitutionality. The principle of the rule of law is the foundation upon which this Republic was founded, it can not exist without it, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

This is settled law, accepted by jurists from every point on the political spectrum.

[Marbury] created a model of judicial independence. It established the fundamental architecture of constitutional review. It planted the seed for the political questions doctrine, and enriched the separation of power principle through Marshall's emphasis on the distinction between ministerial acts--which judges could review--and discretionary political acts which it could or should not. And it perennially compels us to think about the evolving nature of democratic governance.

FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison

The principle of the rule of law dates back to 1215, and its elements further back then that – it is at the core of Anglo-American jurisprudence and makes legitimate all government actions. In countries where there is no respect for the rule of law we see anarchy, oppression, and despotism.

I recommend those on the far right and libertarians study Marbury and its implications, at least be knowledgeable about the legal principle you are rejecting.

The case for those interested.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Thank you very much. For the past couple of years I've watched in disbelief as the right accused the left of not following the constitution. It became obvious to me from the first that most of them had no idea what was in it. They also seemed to believe any damn thing that the RW pundits/TH had to say without taking the time to actually go find out for themselves.

If there are folks on the right that are going to go find out what is actually in the constitution I think that would be a very good thing and I have my fingers crossed.

I have to admit that when I hear the RW elite say they would like to repeal the 17th amendment I laugh. I wonder if they want to go so far back that only white, male, landowners will be eligible.

 

[rightwinger]

Marbury reaffirmed the Common Law principle of the rule of law, that the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are not above the law, and the courts are therefore authorized to review laws to determine their constitutionality. The principle of the rule of law is the foundation upon which this Republic was founded, it can not exist without it, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

This is settled law, accepted by jurists from every point on the political spectrum.

[Marbury] created a model of judicial independence. It established the fundamental architecture of constitutional review. It planted the seed for the political questions doctrine, and enriched the separation of power principle through Marshall's emphasis on the distinction between ministerial acts--which judges could review--and discretionary political acts which it could or should not. And it perennially compels us to think about the evolving nature of democratic governance.

FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison

The principle of the rule of law dates back to 1215, and its elements further back then that – it is at the core of Anglo-American jurisprudence and makes legitimate all government actions. In countries where there is no respect for the rule of law we see anarchy, oppression, and despotism.

I recommend those on the far right and libertarians study Marbury and its implications, at least be knowledgeable about the legal principle you are rejecting.

The case for those interested.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Thank you very much. For the past couple of years I've watched in disbelief as the right accused the left of not following the constitution. It became obvious to me from the first that most of them had no idea what was in it. They also seemed to believe any damn thing that the RW pundits/TH had to say without taking the time to actually go find out for themselves.

If there are folks on the right that are going to go find out what is actually in the constitution I think that would be a very good thing and I have my fingers crossed.

I have to admit that when I hear the RW elite say they would like to repeal the 17th amendment I laugh. I wonder if they want to go so far back that only white, male, landowners will be eligible.

If given the chance, they would

And the female Republicans would back them up on it

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ron Paul always wins these things. Yet when the public (smart ones) vote he is put in his place. When will you guys learn? HE WILL NEVER WIN. It's that simple. Time to move on to issues and people that really matter.....