Do you want to be a member of the Party of 'No'?

[Liability]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

What words in Article III say that, in your estimation?

Here, let me give you a quick assist:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[Darkwind]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

The Judiciary had no such power until Marshall.

 

[xsited1]

I must say I'm shocked and pleased at the results thus far. Thanks for voting. I made it public because I know how some people at USMB complain that some polls are private. It's now time for me to vote "Yes."

 

[DiamondDave]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

Or just consider it saving time for the judiciary.. if the people, in the legal profession, actually reference their legal justification from the Constitution when they create their proposed law

Kinda like you citing data and sources in a college paper... even though it is the job of the instructor to grade you on your content

 

[Meister]

I had to vote yes on this poll. The liberal left (not the left) is redefining what this country is all about. Our Founding Fathers would have never gone in the direction we are moving towards today. Yes, we are not a perfect nation, but we are waaaay ahead of any other nation on this Earth. Now, it seems that is an evil thing, and to be brought down on an even playing field with the rest of the world. I'm proud to be a member of no.

 

[Bern80]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

It was not the intent of the framers to come up with every law that our society may ever need in the first place. The Constitution is not a foundation that you get to extrapolate from, rather it is the rules which legislation must adhere to.

 

[Bern80]

For example?

Why not take the topic de jour.

Where does the Congress derive the authority to determine who should and should not have health insurance? Where to they get the authority to write laws that require specific behavior from the people they govern?

Where are they forbidden from that authority?

To ask this question is to not understand the way in which the constitution was written. The framers were relatively intelligent people and realized it would take an awful lot of time and paper to write down everything government CAN'T do. So they expressly wrote down all of the things government can do (i.e. article 1 Section 8) with the stipulation that if the power is not explicitly stated then government can't do that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Why not take the topic de jour.

Where does the Congress derive the authority to determine who should and should not have health insurance? Where to they get the authority to write laws that require specific behavior from the people they govern?

Where are they forbidden from that authority?

To ask this question is to not understand the way in which the constitution was written. The framers were relatively intelligent people and realized it would take an awful lot of time and paper to write down everything government CAN'T do. So they expressly wrote down all of the things government can do (i.e. article 1 Section 8) with the stipulation that if the power is not explicitly stated then government can't do that.

BINGO

Except that we have the entitlement junkies trying to reinterpret the intent of 'general welfare' and the 'taxing and spending clause' to act as catch alls for personal entitlement programs

The government was carefully set up with limitations... what it was set up to do... and leaving power to the states and individuals to take care of themselves... for if a state decides to do something certain people don't like, they can indeed relocate to another state that does fit better with their beliefs and still remain an American citizen... when the FED does something, you have nowhere else to go

The government was never set up to be your nanny, your babysitter, your nurse, or your mommy to kiss ouchies and take away bad feelings

 

[Bern80]

Where are they forbidden from that authority?

To ask this question is to not understand the way in which the constitution was written. The framers were relatively intelligent people and realized it would take an awful lot of time and paper to write down everything government CAN'T do. So they expressly wrote down all of the things government can do (i.e. article 1 Section 8) with the stipulation that if the power is not explicitly stated then government can't do that.

BINGO

Except that we have the entitlement junkies trying to reinterpret the intent of 'general welfare' and the 'taxing and spending clause' to act as catch alls for personal entitlement programs

The government was carefully set up with limitations... what it was set up to do... and leaving power to the states and individuals to take care of themselves... for if a state decides to do something certain people don't like, they can indeed relocate to another state that does fit better with their beliefs and still remain an American citizen... when the FED does something, you have nowhere else to go

The government was never set up to be your nanny, your babysitter, your nurse, or your mommy to kiss ouchies and take away bad feelings

Just as the interpretation of general welfare is debated now, it was debated then. While not law, Federalist 41 states it was not the intent of the framers for that clause to be a blank check.

 

[Yurt]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

please point specifically to where A3 says that....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

What words in Article III say that, in your estimation?

Here, let me give you a quick assist:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Right there in black and white - section 2 - just because YOU don't like what it says, you want to re-write it?

Sorry - it doesn't work that way.

I'm for following the constitution - NOT following what some wackos try to re-intepret it to mean.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

I already am part of that party .

We are called the American People. We aren't dems, we arent reps, we aren't conservative, we aren't liberal....WE ARE AMERICAN!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

I already am part of that party .

We are called the American People. We aren't dems, we arent reps, we aren't conservative, we aren't liberal....WE ARE AMERICAN!!!

Terrific point - and very well said.

I thinks that's the only party I'm ever likely to align myself with from here on out!

Follow the Constitution and apply it equally to ALL.

 

[Yurt]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

What words in Article III say that, in your estimation?

Here, let me give you a quick assist:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Right there in black and white - section 2 - just because YOU don't like what it says, you want to re-write it?

Sorry - it doesn't work that way.

I'm for following the constitution - NOT following what some wackos try to re-intepret it to mean.

it is not right there in black and white...so i'll ask again, please point out "specifically" where it says what you claim:

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

I already am part of that party .

We are called the American People. We aren't dems, we arent reps, we aren't conservative, we aren't liberal....WE ARE AMERICAN!!!

Terrific point - and very well said.

I thinks that's the only party I'm ever likely to align myself with from here on out!

Follow the Constitution and apply it equally to ALL.

If everyone did this the 2 party lie would lose all its power, which it gains by dividing the people. All of a sudden "We the people" would be in charge of "the government" again and not the government telling we the people how it is.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What words in Article III say that, in your estimation?

Here, let me give you a quick assist:

Right there in black and white - section 2 - just because YOU don't like what it says, you want to re-write it?

Sorry - it doesn't work that way.

I'm for following the constitution - NOT following what some wackos try to re-intepret it to mean.

it is not right there in black and white...so i'll ask again, please point out "specifically" where it says what you claim:

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I already am part of that party .

We are called the American People. We aren't dems, we arent reps, we aren't conservative, we aren't liberal....WE ARE AMERICAN!!!

Terrific point - and very well said.

I thinks that's the only party I'm ever likely to align myself with from here on out!

Follow the Constitution and apply it equally to ALL.

If everyone did this the 2 party lie would lose all its power, which it gains by dividing the people. All of a sudden "We the people" would be in charge of "the government" again and not the government telling we the people how it is.

More terrrific points. IMHO - You are on a real roll today!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Saying No has been painted in such a negative light but in reality saying No is often the right thing to do. More of our politicians should have said No much more often. We wouldn't be in such dire straits right now if they had. Look what constantly saying Yes to massive Spending & Debt has given us. A "Party of No" is exactly what this nation needs at this point. Too bad most Americans are just too ignorant to understand this.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Right there in black and white - section 2 - just because YOU don't like what it says, you want to re-write it?

Sorry - it doesn't work that way.

I'm for following the constitution - NOT following what some wackos try to re-intepret it to mean.

it is not right there in black and white...so i'll ask again, please point out "specifically" where it says what you claim:

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.

Yurt on my first read through today it seems nodog is right about this.

 

[Yurt]

Right there in black and white - section 2 - just because YOU don't like what it says, you want to re-write it?

Sorry - it doesn't work that way.

I'm for following the constitution - NOT following what some wackos try to re-intepret it to mean.

it is not right there in black and white...so i'll ask again, please point out "specifically" where it says what you claim:

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.

IOW....you can't point out the specific words....

i'll give you a hint since you're incapable of actually defending your point....this was not a power until marbury v. madison....the constitution does not expressly state that, that is why you cannot point to specific language to back up your point and why you wuss out and can't rationalize how the words in section 2 back up your point...