Ryan seeks to destroy Constitutional separation of powers

[papagallo73]

Hitting the bong tonight? Jesus fucking christ, what the fuck do you think the last two presidents have been doing!!!!

Why do you let Obama get away with it, but not Ryan???? Tell me something I already fucking don't know.

Obama has practiced 20 times as many wiretaps as Bush. KILLED A AMERICAN CITIZEN.

Troll much?

Why don't you stay on topic, asshole.

Hey, you with the pedo-avi. Practice what you preach and contribute to the topic, asshole.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hitting the bong tonight? Jesus fucking christ, what the fuck do you think the last two presidents have been doing!!!!

Why do you let Obama get away with it, but not Ryan???? Tell me something I already fucking don't know.

Obama has practiced 20 times as many wiretaps as Bush. KILLED A AMERICAN CITIZEN.

He killed 2, neither charged with a crime, one was only 16.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If he doesn't want unelected judges deciding rights issues on abortion,

why does he want a constitutional amendment to give fetuses personhood,

and as a consequence put unelected judges in charge of interpreting that amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So does Ryan think the 2nd amendment should be repealed and the issues of gun ownership turned back to the state legislatures?

I'm guessing he doesn't mind the 'unelected judges' reigning over gun rights via the second amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And another confused and deluded rightwingnut spews his ignorant and idiotic drivel on the thread. Of course he has no real response to the fact that there currently are very real and almost constant rightwing attacks on "unelected judges" and the independent judiciary. Ryan's anti-abortion rant was only one example.

Dude open your god damn eyes what in the fuck has obama done but create more power and control for him. Go pull your fucking heads out of of the ass of that god damn ass hat in the white house

The topic of the thread concerns the efforts by the radical right wing, articulated by Ryan, to denigrate and attack the validity of an independent judiciary, one of the foundations of our Constitutional system of government. The Democrats are doing nothing of the sort, you poor deluded partisan retard.

Actually he is being quite Constitutional. The Congress can and does have the power to create Amendments to the Constitution that if passed would supersede any decision made by the Courts. Further Congress can pass legislation that over turns court rulings as long as the law is with in the scope of the Constitution.

You see THAT is separation of powers. Neither Congress, the President nor the judiciary can single hand run the Country, nor pass laws nor prevent laws from superseding one branches rulings.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So does Ryan think the 2nd amendment should be repealed and the issues of gun ownership turned back to the state legislatures?

I'm guessing he doesn't mind the 'unelected judges' reigning over gun rights via the second amendment.

Firearms are a Federally protected right, the states cannot infringe on an individually
Federally protected protected right.
Don't believe me look at what the 10th amendment says.

 

[RollingThunder]

Dude open your god damn eyes what in the fuck has obama done but create more power and control for him. Go pull your fucking heads out of of the ass of that god damn ass hat in the white house

The topic of the thread concerns the efforts by the radical right wing, articulated by Ryan, to denigrate and attack the validity of an independent judiciary, one of the foundations of our Constitutional system of government. The Democrats are doing nothing of the sort, you poor deluded partisan retard.

I see you're up to your normal level of discourse!

Oh, hi, walleyed, I see you're up to your normal level of irrelevance!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

oh boy, BACK to ABORTION

If only your mother had known what a total lame you'd become...

You and Del should get a room.. You're both nasty old men who say horrific things to people.. You never debate, not ever.. Just trash people for sport.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Dude open your god damn eyes what in the fuck has obama done but create more power and control for him. Go pull your fucking heads out of of the ass of that god damn ass hat in the white house

The topic of the thread concerns the efforts by the radical right wing, articulated by Ryan, to denigrate and attack the validity of an independent judiciary, one of the foundations of our Constitutional system of government. The Democrats are doing nothing of the sort, you poor deluded partisan retard.

Actually he is being quite Constitutional. The Congress can and does have the power to create Amendments to the Constitution that if passed would supersede any decision made by the Courts. Further Congress can pass legislation that over turns court rulings as long as the law is with in the scope of the Constitution.

You see THAT is separation of powers. Neither Congress, the President nor the judiciary can single hand run the Country, nor pass laws nor prevent laws from superseding one branches rulings.

OOOrah Gunny.. Nice way to school the Noob..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lie'n Ryan spouted a lot of the usual rightwing misdirection, spin, and factually incorrect statements (lies), but one thing he said at the end of the debate really caught my attention. In talking about abortion, he said that a bunch of "unelected judges" shouldn't be deciding these issues but rather it should be a "democratic process", perhaps at the state level. This kind of statement is very much part of the overall Republican agenda of trying to castrate the courts and pervert their independence from temporary political majorities. The founders of this country, in their efforts to avoid having their new government deteriorate into a tyranny, had the wisdom to set up in our Constitution a system of government that fundamentally has three independent and separate branches of government that function together cooperatively while still (hopefully) serving our nation as a protective system of 'checks and balances' on each other. Judges should be "unelected" (and they mostly are), and they are supposed to be deciding issues of law based only on the existing legal system and ultimately the Constitution, free from partisan political considerations or pressures. The Supreme Court is supposed to be examining existing laws that are being challenged as to their constitutionality. That is a big part of their Constitutionally defined job within our basic system of government - keeping legislatures and the executive branch from infringing on the inherent Constitutional rights that Americans enjoy. The Court, those "unelected judges", are doing just what the American Founding Fathers intended that they should be doing when they uphold the inherent rights of the people and the rights of minorities. The radical right wing hates that. They don't want some little piece of paper standing in their way to either increasing corporate profits and power at the expense of the American people and our nation or enshrining their own peculiar moral/sexual prejudices and preferences into law. So they talk about "unelected judges" as if that was a bad thing. This really comes down to a treasonous attack on our basic Constitutional separation of powers that tends to keep naked power grabs or temporary wild partisan insanity somewhat in check in the executive and legislative branches. The corporate sponsored radical rightwing hates government regulations that get in the way of profits so, as their own public statements over the years show quite clearly, their real goal is to dismantle or "starve" out of existence most of the functional parts of the federal government. Or at least the ones serving the people and keeping the exploiters and polluters somewhat in check. The radical right/corporatists/plutocrats that Romney and Ryan are fronting for, would, of course, keep increasing funding for the military, the police (lots more anti-abortion enforcement cops spying on everyone's personal life, if Romoney is elected) and more and more (and more) prisons, but everything else that the government does to protect the environment and ensure the safety of our water supplies and curb air pollution, etc., and to help and protect the poor, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, or anyone else worth less than a couple of million dollars, would be cut out to supposedly "balance the budget". These greedy fools would be the ruination of this country.

Years ago, someone brought a case (Roe vs: Wade) regarding abortion all the way to the Supreme Court. Their decision was not based on how popular it would be but rather on whether or not the laws banning abortion infringed on a woman's fundamental constitutional right to privacy and control over her own body. They decided that these anti-abortion laws on any level, federal or state, violated basic Constitutional rights and that the government should keep out of it and leave the matter to the woman and her doctor. The radical right wing leadership, even though they don't give two hoots about human life at any stage, let alone embryos, have used a twisted emotionalized version of the abortion issue to grab Catholics and fundamentalists who have been misled into thinking that this is an important issue and convince them to vote against their own clear best interests by voting for Republicans. Now they are trying to use the abortion issue as another emotional wedge to attack the already shaky independence of the judicial system. So-called "unelected judges" have been the American people's best defense against the depredations of big business and the excesses of the other branches of government for two centuries but they are now under serious attack by the treasonous power junkies on the far right.

The Three Branches Of Government
The Free Dictionary - Legal Dictionary
(excerpts)

The division of state and federal government into three independent branches.

The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch. However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power. This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify the power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny.

Under the separation of powers, each branch of government has a specific function. The legislative branch—the Congress—makes the laws. The executive branch—the president—implements the laws. The judiciary—the court system—interprets the laws and decides legal controversies. The system of federal taxation provides a good example of each branch at work. Congress passes legislation regarding taxes. The president is responsible for appointing a director of the Internal Revenue Service to carry out the law through the collection of taxes. The courts rule on cases concerning the application of the tax laws.

Under the system of checks and balances, each branch acts as a restraint on the powers of the other two. The president can either sign the legislation of Congress, making it law, or Veto it. The Congress, through the Senate, has the power of advise and consent on presidential appointments and can therefore reject an appointee. The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president. Most judges are appointed, and therefore Congress and the president can affect the judiciary. Thus at no time does all authority rest with a single branch of government. Instead, power is measured, apportioned, and restrained among the three government branches. The states also follow the three-part model of government, through state governors, state legislatures, and the state court systems.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Precisely.

Most conservatives and republicans have only contempt for the rule of law, or an ignorance thereof; they fail to realize that our Republic is predicated upon the rule of law, not men, one’s rights are not subject to majority rule, and one’s rights are not determined by his state of residence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unelected judges are there to decide cases based on EXISTING law, not to write NEW laws on the fly.

To stretch the enumerated right to be free of illegal search and seizure into an unwritten right of 'privacy', and then use that unwritten right to accommodate the Leftist desire to murder inconvenient babies is a ridiculous distortion of the powers granted to the Judicial Branch of government.

Careful with that ‘reasoning.’

As already noted, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a right to self-defense or the individual to own a gun.

If there’s no right to privacy, then there’s also no right of the individual to bear arms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So does Ryan think the 2nd amendment should be repealed and the issues of gun ownership turned back to the state legislatures?

I'm guessing he doesn't mind the 'unelected judges' reigning over gun rights via the second amendment.

Firearms are a Federally protected right, the states cannot infringe on an individually
Federally protected protected right.
Don't believe me look at what the 10th amendment says.

Wrong again.

Before Heller, the Federal government was at liberty to restrict firearms; before McDonald, the states were free to do so as well.

The right of the individual to bear arms is as much a ‘made up’ right as the right to privacy.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[RollingThunder]

Unelected judges are there to decide cases based on EXISTING law, not to write NEW laws on the fly.

To stretch the enumerated right to be free of illegal search and seizure into an unwritten right of 'privacy', and then use that unwritten right to accommodate the Leftist desire to murder inconvenient babies is a ridiculous distortion of the powers granted to the Judicial Branch of government.

The Supreme Court ("unelected judges") are there to judge "EXISTING law" and determine whether or not the laws passed by Congress or the states conform to the standards set down by the Constitution. Anti-abortion laws that violate the separation of church and state in order to enshrine in law your peculiar and very stupid religious superstitions (that a good part of the population doesn't believe in, BTW), are clearly un-Constitutional. Embryos are not "babies" or people yet in spite of your superstitions. A woman's right to control her own body and determine the timing of her pregnancies trumps the imaginary rights of a cluster of cells that is not yet a person or even born. People who don't care about human life at all are using this issue to manipulate you and the other fervent but very deluded anti-abortionists.

The Supreme Court ("unelected judges") are there to judge "EXISTING law" and determine whether or not the laws passed by Congress or the states conform to the standards set down by the Constitution. Anti-abortion laws that violate the separation of church and state in order to enshrine in law your peculiar and very stupid religious superstitions (that a good part of the population doesn't believe in, BTW), are clearly un-Constitutional.

There is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution.

Nevertheless a separation of church and state is a recognized part of our Constitutional system of government, as the founders intended.

Separation of church and state in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

Embryos are not "babies" or people yet in spite of your superstitions. A woman's right to control her own body and determine the timing of her pregnancies trumps the imaginary rights of a cluster of cells that is not yet a person or even born. People who don't care about human life at all are using this issue to manipulate you and the other fervent but very deluded anti-abortionists.

So, just what is an embryo?

An embryo is a rapidly multiplying and growing cluster of cells that starts with a fertilized egg and is so named until about eight weeks after the conception. After that and until birth, it is termed a fetus. Both represent the initial stages of growth of a vehicle that may eventually hold a human spirit or person. A fairly high percentage of embryos fail to make it for various natural reasons and are just flushed out of the woman's body with her normal menstrual flow, often without her even knowing anything had happened. Is Mother Nature or God the biggest abortionist of all? You've been fooled into imagining that whenever a sperm cell enters an egg cell, there is magically someone there already who needs protection but in reality there is no one there yet! Even the Catholic Church used to acknowledge this, at least in the early stages of pregnancy. Not that I agree with their dogmas but just saying....

Catholic Church and abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Belief in delayed animation
It was commonly held, even by Christians, that a human being did not come into existence as such immediately on conception, but only some weeks later. This view was strongly expressed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109), who said that "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception."[14] In that view, early abortion was not homicide, the killing of a human being. A few decades after the death of Anselm, this became part of Catholic canon law in the Decretum Gratiani, which stated that "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."[14]

History of Christian thought on abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ensoulment
Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law.[21][22] Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV also believed that a fetus does not have a soul until "quickening," or when the fetus begins to kick and move, and therefore early abortion was not murder, though later abortion was.[10][21]

A superstition that it magically becomes a baby? Imaginary cluster of cells???

You know, for someone who presumes to critique my writing, you sure can't seem to read very well - or write very coherently either, for that matter, if these kind of straw-men and distortions are the best you can do.

So no, Jackhole, it's not about some "superstition that it magically becomes a baby", it's about your superstition that a cluster of cells the size of my fingernail is a human person already whose supposed 'rights' should dominate and overpower the rights of the woman carrying this embryo. No "magic" about it, dufus. The embryo develops into a fetus and the fetus eventually gets born, starts breathing and living on its own and at that point technically "becomes a baby".

Are you fond of misquoting people? Or just too stupid to read it correctly? What is this mangled misquote - "Imaginary cluster of cells???" - supposed to mean when I actually said this - "...the imaginary rights of a cluster of cells that is not yet a person or even born"?

Since when does a woman's right to control her body outweigh a life of a baby?

Your superstition is that there is a person there already, a "baby" as you mislabel it. A woman who has an abortion is not 'murdering her baby' as you deluded fools would believe. She is ending the growth of something that is still part of her body and which has the potential to become the vehicle for a human being but isn't yet because it is undeveloped and no one is there yet. It is her business, not the government's or your church's business what goes on inside her own body or what decisions she makes based on her own circumstances and beliefs.

She had plenty of opportunities to deny a pregnancy before the embryo appeared. Why did she not exhaust those solutions before it became a living embryo, soon to become a birth? At that point, a woman's responsibility is to become the vessel for this child to be nurtured in it's natural environment before taken away at birth and given the proper environment to grow into adulthood. Even you cannot deny the natural order of life.

I don't know if you're just very naive or simply a bit retarded but your understanding of the power of women around the world to control their conceptions is simply hallucinatory. Woman have no natural or moral responsibility to carry to birth any fertilized egg that may happen. That's your arrogant superstition. Bearing a child or not and just when should be her choice, not yours, not the government's, and not the church's - HER CHOICE.

You my friend, are a lunatic. There is nothing imaginary about life.

You are fascist control freak who would enslave half the population to suit your deranged superstitions. There is nothing imaginary about life but there is a lot that is imaginary about your conception of reality and human identity.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Unelected judges are there to decide cases based on EXISTING law, not to write NEW laws on the fly.

To stretch the enumerated right to be free of illegal search and seizure into an unwritten right of 'privacy', and then use that unwritten right to accommodate the Leftist desire to murder inconvenient babies is a ridiculous distortion of the powers granted to the Judicial Branch of government.

Careful with that ‘reasoning.’

As already noted, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a right to self-defense or the individual to own a gun.

If there’s no right to privacy, then there’s also no right of the individual to bear arms.

Oh please.. You must think Conservatives don't know what the Constitution states.. It's obvious, YOU DON'T.. There is an "expressed right to privacy" or so the Court said when conflating the Constitution, under the 14th Amendment's due process clause.. IT'S NOT SPELLED OUT.. it was INTERPRETED.. The right to keep and bear arms, IS SPELLED OUT. You leftists need to educate yourselves.. you're a bunch of FOOLS.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

PS- Don't even try the 9th Amendment..it's not in there either.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Notice how liberals have to make up crap to try and shove their KOOK agenda down the throat of Americans?? "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" - not in the Constitution
"RIGHT TO PRIVACY" - not in the Constitution

Everything a liberal does or says, predicates a lie.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

It's been nearly 15 minutes C_Clayton.. No response still? You're still here posting.. Why is it you keep avoidiing answering any of your claims?? You shouldn't have to google the US Constitution.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

When the foundation of your argument is built upon a lie it's hard to debate the merit of it. This is why Obama couldn't debate Mitt Romney.. and this is why the Liberals in this thread have no counter argument. Theirs is based upon lies..

 

[editec]

The SCOTUS has been granting additional powers to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT since the early 19th century.

To lay the claim that this additional power granted to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is either a Republican-only problem or a Democratic-only problem is the height of partisan blindness.

Neither party ever seems to go out of its way to give up that power when they achieve power in Congress and or the White House.

IN fact both parties seem to be doing everything they can to continue granting the Federal government more power over the people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama has done 3 times as much damage to our country than Bush. Anyone that can support Obama isn't serious about protecting the constitution. Wiretaps and other inroads into our freedoms are huge threats.

Of course you're hypocrites as you support this big government.