Gingrich's Fall Has Some Conservatives Rethinking Their Choice

Thats true. I agree completely.

At the same time, I have no issue kicking the table over. I am not trying to be better then anyone else, I have never thought of myself as any better either.

What goes around comes around. Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord. Then sometimes he needs a little help.

I am not trying to be better than them but I don't want to be like them either.

I will only reply that I am willing to fight fire with fire. Playing nice has us 15 trillion in debt and counting. 20 trillion in less then 5. The debt will never be paid and it will get very ugly, it is only a question of when.

Yeah, fighting fire with fire doesn't burn both sides its burns the American people you dick head, you fail to realize like dick heads in Congress that when they block and reject legislation they're not sticking to the other side, they're sticking to the people, including yourself, what a fucking useful idiot and fucktard hack you are.
 
I am not trying to be better than them but I don't want to be like them either.

I will only reply that I am willing to fight fire with fire. Playing nice has us 15 trillion in debt and counting. 20 trillion in less then 5. The debt will never be paid and it will get very ugly, it is only a question of when.

Yeah, fighting fire with fire doesn't burn both sides its burns the American people you dick head, you fail to realize like dick heads in Congress that when they block and reject legislation they're not sticking to the other side, they're sticking to the people, including yourself, what a fucking useful idiot and fucktard hack you are.

What if that legislation was going to be bad for America would you want it past anyway?
 
Thomas Jefferson's nonsense?

Below are a list of sites that will help develop Jefferson's feud with the federal judiciary. He fell before judicial review, but Jackson and Lincoln later simpled ignored it when the court got in the way of what they wanted. I don't think Newt could punish judges, other than impeachment, and I don't think he would ignore them today.

Google "Jefferson and the judiciary."

President Jefferson Biography - Jefferson and the Judiciary eNotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More. › Law and Politics › Presidential BiographiesCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
President Jefferson Biography - Jefferson and the Judiciary.
Judicial Tyranny was Foreseen by Thomas Jefferson www.restore-government-accountability.com/judicial-tyranny.htmlCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Judicial tyranny: What Jefferson foresaw -- judicial usurpation of constitutional powers of People and of Congress -- so alarmed him that to its prevention he ...
The Attack on the Judiciary - SparkNotes www.sparknotes.com/history/american/firstyears/section5.rhtmlCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The composition of the judicial branch of the national government was a major point of contention in the early years of Thomas Jefferson's presidency. In 1800 ...
Jefferson as President: His Judicial Blunders - H.A. Scott Trask ... mises.org/daily/4477Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jul 20, 2010 – Jefferson failed to appoint a states' rights Republican to the Supreme Court who could rival John Marshall in erudition, strength of personality, ...
Midnight Judges Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Judges_ActCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The Midnight Judges Act (also known as the Judiciary Act of 1801; 2 Stat. .... Once elected, Jefferson set out to rescind the Judiciary Act of 1801 and remove ...
Fiscal and judiciary reform - Thomas Jefferson - policy, war, foreign ... Presidents: A Reference History › ... › Thomas JeffersonCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The federal judiciary furnished the principal political battleground of Jefferson's first term. There were three battles and many skirmishes in the so-called war on ...
American President: Thomas Jefferson: Domestic Affairs millercenter.org/president/jefferson/essays/biography/4Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
To make matters worse, just before Jefferson's inauguration, the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This piece of legislation ...
Thomas Jefferson and the Judiciary | Dr. Clark Jensen drclarkjensen.com/thomas-jefferson-and-the-judiciary/Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jun 21, 2011 – Thomas Jefferson was serving as an ambassador to France when the Constitutional Convention was held. For the most part, Jefferson was ...
Jefferson on Politics & Government: Judicial Branch http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bjects/.../ThomasJefferson/jeff1270.htmCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
"Render the judiciary respectable by every means possible, to wit, firm tenure in office, competent salaries and reduction of their numbers." --Thomas Jefferson to ...

That's an impressive list that shows that the "liberal" nature of the founding fathers was more akin to the right wing of today than anything the liberals wallow in.

Jake call what Jefferson did nonsense. That should speak volumes about who starkey is.
 
Particularly if he's one of the idiots who always squawks "The founding fathers were liberals JUST LIKE US!"

Schizophrenic loons.

Their fascist liberal judges are like the tribunals of the Inquisition. Scum who view themselves as somehow above God, law and man.
 
It was decided some time last year, that the only candidate the banksters would allow, other than Obama, was Romney. Silly voters.

Of all the folks here, you seem the most in need of taking a course of action. You are so certain that the rest of us dummies are being played.........and all you do is sit there and watch the show. What kind of patriot are you?

I don't think I'm the only one here who feels that way. The best course of action I've found is to support those who are willing to speak truth to power. Ron Paul is the most prominent, and I've supported his efforts in a number of ways. Do you have other suggestions?

I suggest that you will get more intelligent people to come around to your way of thinking by NOT accusing them of being dupes........and by not running around like a headless chicken spouting off about electoral conspiracies.
 
Particularly if he's one of the idiots who always squawks "The founding fathers were liberals JUST LIKE US!"

Schizophrenic loons.

Their fascist liberal judges are like the tribunals of the Inquisition. Scum who view themselves as somehow above God, law and man.

They were classical liberals, most of them, unlike the great majorities of the current Republican and Democrat parties.
 
Rethinking any choice is good when it comes to our leaders. Let's hope the Democrats have the same wisdom in rethinking their choice.
 
I am not trying to be better than them but I don't want to be like them either.

I will only reply that I am willing to fight fire with fire. Playing nice has us 15 trillion in debt and counting. 20 trillion in less then 5. The debt will never be paid and it will get very ugly, it is only a question of when.

Yeah, fighting fire with fire doesn't burn both sides its burns the American people you dick head, you fail to realize like dick heads in Congress that when they block and reject legislation they're not sticking to the other side, they're sticking to the people, including yourself, what a fucking useful idiot and fucktard hack you are.

Democrats are the ones sticking it to the people asswipe.


democrats the gimme gimme party.

Fuck you, is that personal enough or should I continue.
 
Newt is merely a Jeffersonian extension of limiting judicial powers moved forward 200 years.

TJ's nonsense died back then, and even if Newt were elected, the nonsense would end quickly with him backing down very quickly.
Thomas Jefferson's nonsense?

Below are a list of sites that will help develop Jefferson's feud with the federal judiciary. He fell before judicial review, but Jackson and Lincoln later simpled ignored it when the court got in the way of what they wanted. I don't think Newt could punish judges, other than impeachment, and I don't think he would ignore them today.

Google "Jefferson and the judiciary."

President Jefferson Biography - Jefferson and the Judiciary eNotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More. › Law and Politics › Presidential BiographiesCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
President Jefferson Biography - Jefferson and the Judiciary.
Judicial Tyranny was Foreseen by Thomas Jefferson www.restore-government-accountability.com/judicial-tyranny.htmlCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Judicial tyranny: What Jefferson foresaw -- judicial usurpation of constitutional powers of People and of Congress -- so alarmed him that to its prevention he ...
The Attack on the Judiciary - SparkNotes www.sparknotes.com/history/american/firstyears/section5.rhtmlCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The composition of the judicial branch of the national government was a major point of contention in the early years of Thomas Jefferson's presidency. In 1800 ...
Jefferson as President: His Judicial Blunders - H.A. Scott Trask ... mises.org/daily/4477Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jul 20, 2010 – Jefferson failed to appoint a states' rights Republican to the Supreme Court who could rival John Marshall in erudition, strength of personality, ...
Midnight Judges Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Judges_ActCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The Midnight Judges Act (also known as the Judiciary Act of 1801; 2 Stat. .... Once elected, Jefferson set out to rescind the Judiciary Act of 1801 and remove ...
Fiscal and judiciary reform - Thomas Jefferson - policy, war, foreign ... Presidents: A Reference History › ... › Thomas JeffersonCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The federal judiciary furnished the principal political battleground of Jefferson's first term. There were three battles and many skirmishes in the so-called war on ...
American President: Thomas Jefferson: Domestic Affairs millercenter.org/president/jefferson/essays/biography/4Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
To make matters worse, just before Jefferson's inauguration, the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This piece of legislation ...
Thomas Jefferson and the Judiciary | Dr. Clark Jensen drclarkjensen.com/thomas-jefferson-and-the-judiciary/Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jun 21, 2011 – Thomas Jefferson was serving as an ambassador to France when the Constitutional Convention was held. For the most part, Jefferson was ...
Jefferson on Politics & Government: Judicial Branch http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bjects/.../ThomasJefferson/jeff1270.htmCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
"Render the judiciary respectable by every means possible, to wit, firm tenure in office, competent salaries and reduction of their numbers." --Thomas Jefferson to ...

If tha'ts not enough.


The Founders on the dangers of Judicial Activism

Did you know that the Founders foresaw the predicament under which we now find ourselves being oppressed by the United States Supreme Court and Federal Judges? They not only provided us with the ability to impeach judges; it was their opinion that either the Executive branch or Congress could overrule a Judicial opinion on the Constitutionality of any issue. President Thomas Jefferson even overruled a law that passed in Congress and was signed by the previous President, on the grounds that it was Unconstitutional. Hence, The good news is: the people of this country can throw off the chains of Judicial Tyranny and oppression, forced upon the majority of Americans since 1947, by electing Christians to Congress who are committed to taking the country back to its Christian roots and heritage.

Please read the excerpts below and purchase the materials provided from David Barton, that provide us with the information on our Founders that will give us the tools needed in this hour.

David Barton: WallBuilders, Inc., P.O. Box 397, Aledo, Texas, 76008, 817-441-6044
WallBuilders | Presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage.

ORIGINAL INTENT by David Barton
Chapter 15: excerpts from pages 258 through to page 269

MAINTAINING CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY: A Government of the People

... Very simply, the Constitutional framers supported judicial review; the Federalist Papers explained it; the ratification debates described it; and legal scholars confirmed it.

Yet, within judicial review, there were specific things which the Judiciary could not do. For example, laws were to be judged only against the specific, self-evident wording of the Constitution and nothing further. In other words, judicial review had a limited field of inquiry. Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist #81:

[T]here is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.

James Kent similarly explained that the Judiciary could compare a law only to "the true intent and meaning of the Constitution." According to Hamilton, the reason that the courts were not to construe the laws "according to the spirit of the Constitution" was that this would "enable the court to mold them [the laws] into whatever shape it may think proper" which was "as unprecedented as it was dangerous." Very simply, if the Judiciary were allowed to place its own meaning on laws, or to strike down laws which did not necessarily violate the Constitution but with which it disagreed, then the Judiciary would become more powerful than the Legislature - a possibility repugnant to the Founders.

As James Madison explained: [R]efusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character... makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper.

Thomas Jefferson predicted how this judicial increase of power might occur:

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

Because any branch was capable of determining constitutionality, the Founders rejected the notion that the Judiciary was the final voice. In fact, a letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Jefferson explicitly addressed the absurdity of such an assertion:

{O]ur Constitution... intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given-according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation... . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

To Abigail Adams he explained:

[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

http://www.doctorsenator.com/Founderson ... ranny.html
 
What Katz is not telling you that Barton quotes from a minority, when in fact the Founders who spoke about the doctrine of judicial review did indeed support it as did 9 of 13 state constitutions.

A rather simplistic yet accurate statement can be found in What did the Founders Think of Judicial Review? The Founders were divided on the wisdom of judicial review. Jefferson, in particular, put his faith in the people, their elected representatives (at the national, state, and local levels); therefore he was wary about letting the courts second-guess the legislative branch. // Hamilton, on the other hand, argued that judicial oversight was the last missing piece in the Constitutional system. He made this argument even before the Constitution was formalized, but his argument implicitly recognized the right of judges to nullify laws that contradicted the Constitution. // The Founders may not have agreed on who should have the final word on the Constitution, but they’d probably agree that it is not just a question of who decides, but why.

What Would the Founders Do?
Our Questions, Their Answers
Author: Richard Brookhiser
Publisher: Basic Books
Date of Publication: May 2006
ISBN: 0465008194
No. of Pages: 272


Katz, Barton is a loon, so fall not for his tune.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top