Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?
You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.
I think paul's campaign manager has that down pact already.
What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.
What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?
You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.
I think paul's campaign manager has that down pact already.
Hence my title of "jaded."What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.
You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.
Hence my title of "jaded."What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?
You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.
Fuck politics.
Hence my title of "jaded."You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.
Fuck politics.
Which accomplishes what exactly?
Not much in a democratically administered system. That's the problem with the system. Or rather, such a system with this degree of power over the lives of the people.Hence my title of "jaded."You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.
Fuck politics.
Which accomplishes what exactly?
The problem with politics today is that people view their vote as something to be bartered for instead of a gift to be given. I reward those I agree with by giving them my vote and I ask only that they stand by their word. If they violate that trust then I will never give them another vote.
I don't want promises of what they will do for me or give me with other peoples money. I want them to uphold their oath to the constitution and the people.
What's to roll your eyes over libertarianism?Well, he's a libertarian, hence most of the eye-rolling.
What's to roll your eyes over libertarianism?Well, he's a libertarian, hence most of the eye-rolling.
The thought that he would actually be responsible for wiping his own ass.What's to roll your eyes over libertarianism?Well, he's a libertarian, hence most of the eye-rolling.
Neither of the Pauls seem to think things through. They both make outrageous statements without ever considering how their beliefs, opinions or plans would work or what they would do. Even though Ron Paul is 75+ years old, he seems very naive. His kid is just plain racist and dumb. No thought at all.
Neither Ron nor Rand are actually Libertarians.
I knew and worked with Dave Nolan in Denver in the 70s. In its purest form, Libertarianism is beautiful and appeals to the very naive as well as anarchist wannabes.
Libertarianism is a lot like Communism is that both work very well on paper but will never work in real life.
What is it with you non-libertarians trying to assert who is or who isn't a libertarian?
What's to roll your eyes over libertarianism?Well, he's a libertarian, hence most of the eye-rolling.
The legislative branch ought to have more say on constitutionality than the judicial branch.
We the people don't have a voice in the judicial branch. We should be deciding for ourselves what we want the interpretation to be, and the only way to do that is through our representatives. We're supposed to be forcing our representatives to REPRESENT us.
Nope....Part of checks and balances
Someone has to tell the legislative branch when they are stepping over the line. And they often do
The Judicial Branch needs to be exempt from the whims of the public and decide based on Constitutional and Judicial precedence
Checks and balances? Who checks and balances the court when they make a final ruling?
This is just your opinion. The framers never gave the judicial branch that power. It's not even VAGUELY mentioned in the constitution as a power.
Hamilton seemed to support the idea of judicial review, but even he ultimately said that the power was in words only and not actions. The court can have an opinion on legislation but not a final binding decision on constitutionality. They simply do not have that power.
What's to roll your eyes over libertarianism?Well, he's a libertarian, hence most of the eye-rolling.
Mostly because they live in a fantasy world adrift from reality
No country in the world is run on Libertarian principles..........none ever will
Fuck your case law. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the court is the final answer on constitutionality. It doesn't even give them the authority for judicial review. The court awarded ITSELF that power.
The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.
After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.
The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review
It could be that a fair amount of the case law ignores the Constitution.
What if the precedence is bad?
The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”
What's to roll your eyes over libertarianism?
What's to roll your eyes over libertarianism?
Mostly because they live in a fantasy world adrift from reality
No country in the world is run on Libertarian principles..........none ever will
You're admitting there's been no precedent set for a country being run on libertarian principles, yet somehow seem to have the clairvoyance to know it won't work.
You've got a lot of opinions, but at the end of the day that's all they are.
The constitution created the courts which makes the constitution supreme. The courts might "interpret" themselves out of power if they keep at it. Every change made to the constitution weakens it because it diminishes the true power of the constitution which is the protection of individual freedom. This is the bedrock of our nation and it is being slowly eroded and your courts are one of the worst offenders.
