Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Robert Bork disagrees with you.

He called the decision a mistake.

And credits it with starting the Civil War.

I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.



Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.

"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.



You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.



The vulgarity.....

It appears I've gotten under your scales simply by quoting you.


This:
You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.




I quoted you accurately, didn't I?
 
I see you prefer not to think before posting....so as to be just as surprised as everyone else.




Did you write this?
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

Yes, you did.

QED you endorse slavery.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know
1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the 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."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???


All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia


A great problem with the Supreme Court is that the Constitution never would have been ratified without the promise of federalism....your reference to the 10th amendment.


The current issue, abortion, is a case in point....pun intended.

If every state can have different gun laws, why isn't the same true for abortion laws?
Reagan recommended voting with ones feet....moving to where you like the laws better.



BTW....loved this book:
51ZQq-E2rtL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


If not for the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, you would not have 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, regulations, edicts, statutes, ordinances, case holdings, etc. governing firearms.

Today abortion is legal; in a few months it might be illegal if Trump has his way. Then some liberal court will reverse that. It looks like it's up to nine people wearing women's underwear, playing God instead of turning the job of legislation over to legislators.

And, since it's already been done, we might as well keep doing it wrong. Right?

I think we see this the same way.

And I think you and PolitcalChic are on the same page.

It just seems you are very combative.

So:

1. I hate the 14th amendment. I agree it's ratification was illegal. The southern states were not allowed a vote and Ohio (I think) was not allowed to withdraw it's ratification. Lew Rockwell did a great piece on it.

The Squalid 14th Amendment - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

It gave rise to the doctrine of incorporation.

And the downside was that yes.....it would mean states could have gun control. As I understand it, most states have a type of 2nd amendment written into them so counties could not do their own thing. But why would states do that if they thought the Bill of Rights prevented them from it ?

But I am still lost as to how you think this should be rectified.

No, I don't want the fed to keep doing it wrong....I don't want the fed doing anything but what the constitution says it should be doing.

I was offended that Political Chic sought to control the debate by using Pavlovian conditioning techniques. Ah yes, if we toss out the slavery issue or the we play the race card, it's game over.

Sadly, the masses buy that.

The biggest thing the right does wrong is to give any credence to the 14th Amendment. As you pointed out, doing so takes away our unalienable Rights and allows the state to dole out rights (which are actually privileges) and it then negates unalienable Rights.

We are in the position we're in because people want too much government. Had you lived in the 1970s, looking for a job, whites found themselves shut out. There were racial quotas, affirmative action, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination, etc.

Today, instead of lobbying for more government like the right did... the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the so -called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify system (Socialist Security Number ... ooops "Social Security Number" based ID), profiling, the Constitution Free Zone, womb to the tomb surveillance .... Instead of doing all of that IF they sought to repeal laws, we would not have near the problems we have today.

The fewer laws on the books, the fewer chances the courts have to interpret the laws. We hold ourselves accountable. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself.

Sure, if you repeal the 14th Amendment, someone would make slavery an issue. But, then, other laws come into play. For example, when the Constitution was ratified, the framers gave the slavers a decade to bring the slave trade to a close. That's in the Constitution. It's a non-sequitir.

America was founded by white Christians and the founders / framers created the social contract we call the Constitution. In the Preamble, it is stated that this social contract was to "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Within months of ratifying the Constitution, Congress passed our first Naturalization law.

"...that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States...." 1 Stat 103 (1790)

It is what it is. We don't have a problem with Japan who claims to be the most racially pure nation on the planet. Over 98 percent of China is Han Chinese. North and South Korea are both 98 percent plus a homogeneous people. Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black. But, somehow, it became offensive for the whites to have their own homeland. Behind all that build a wall talk is the real truth, but we allow people that don't understand the law to play the race and slavery cards in order to avoid an honest discussion.

Both sides want to use the courts to be the determinative factor. Sadly, the United States Supreme Court is the bastion of liberalism. Nobody is nominated to it until they pass the smell test of the American Bar Association. The ABA is the de facto vetting center for federal judges and United States Supreme Court nominees. The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States. So, now you know why I am being attacked and you have some idea of what you can do if the United States Supreme Court over-steps its authority.
 
No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know
All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia


I cannot help that the system is doing things that fail to meet constitutional muster. I do speak out and until the early 2000s I put my money and my time into challenging unconstitutional and illegal acts - especially by the government. But, the political pundits that know every damn thing wanted to argue and filibuster... much like what you see happening here. At some point, there was no point.

But, if the United States Supreme Court doesn't abide by the law and we don't hold them accountable, what's the point?

O.K.

How do we hold them accountable ?

Take their advice:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it
." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

You have a wide range of avenues of redress. Passive resistance, civil disobedience, and appealing to the other two branches of government to voice your disagreement with Marbury v. Madison are the first that come to mind. That road is a thread unto itself, but bottom line:

Any law that conflicts with the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled AND interferes with my unalienable Rights is a law that I will gladly ignore if it impedes my ability to exercise my Rights AND I'm not imposing on the Rights of my fellow man.

98% in aligment.


You're probably right.
 
Robert Bork disagrees with you.

He called the decision a mistake.

And credits it with starting the Civil War.

I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.



Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.

"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.



You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.

Get a grip.

That isn't her.

I can vouche for that.


Okay, I may have over-reacted. I accept your premise.
 
No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know
All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia


A great problem with the Supreme Court is that the Constitution never would have been ratified without the promise of federalism....your reference to the 10th amendment.


The current issue, abortion, is a case in point....pun intended.

If every state can have different gun laws, why isn't the same true for abortion laws?
Reagan recommended voting with ones feet....moving to where you like the laws better.



BTW....loved this book:
51ZQq-E2rtL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


If not for the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, you would not have 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, regulations, edicts, statutes, ordinances, case holdings, etc. governing firearms.

Today abortion is legal; in a few months it might be illegal if Trump has his way. Then some liberal court will reverse that. It looks like it's up to nine people wearing women's underwear, playing God instead of turning the job of legislation over to legislators.

And, since it's already been done, we might as well keep doing it wrong. Right?

I think we see this the same way.

And I think you and PolitcalChic are on the same page.

It just seems you are very combative.

So:

1. I hate the 14th amendment. I agree it's ratification was illegal. The southern states were not allowed a vote and Ohio (I think) was not allowed to withdraw it's ratification. Lew Rockwell did a great piece on it.

The Squalid 14th Amendment - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

It gave rise to the doctrine of incorporation.

And the downside was that yes.....it would mean states could have gun control. As I understand it, most states have a type of 2nd amendment written into them so counties could not do their own thing. But why would states do that if they thought the Bill of Rights prevented them from it ?

But I am still lost as to how you think this should be rectified.

No, I don't want the fed to keep doing it wrong....I don't want the fed doing anything but what the constitution says it should be doing.

I was offended that Political Chic sought to control the debate by using Pavlovian conditioning techniques. Ah yes, if we toss out the slavery issue or the we play the race card, it's game over.

Sadly, the masses buy that.

The biggest thing the right does wrong is to give any credence to the 14th Amendment. As you pointed out, doing so takes away our unalienable Rights and allows the state to dole out rights (which are actually privileges) and it then negates unalienable Rights.

We are in the position we're in because people want too much government. Had you lived in the 1970s, looking for a job, whites found themselves shut out. There were racial quotas, affirmative action, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination, etc.

Today, instead of lobbying for more government like the right did... the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the so -called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify system (Socialist Security Number ... ooops "Social Security Number" based ID), profiling, the Constitution Free Zone, womb to the tomb surveillance .... Instead of doing all of that IF they sought to repeal laws, we would not have near the problems we have today.

The fewer laws on the books, the fewer chances the courts have to interpret the laws. We hold ourselves accountable. You cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself.

Sure, if you repeal the 14th Amendment, someone would make slavery an issue. But, then, other laws come into play. For example, when the Constitution was ratified, the framers gave the slavers a decade to bring the slave trade to a close. That's in the Constitution. It's a non-sequitir.

America was founded by white Christians and the founders / framers created the social contract we call the Constitution. In the Preamble, it is stated that this social contract was to "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Within months of ratifying the Constitution, Congress passed our first Naturalization law.

"...that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States...." 1 Stat 103 (1790)

It is what it is. We don't have a problem with Japan who claims to be the most racially pure nation on the planet. Over 98 percent of China is Han Chinese. North and South Korea are both 98 percent plus a homogeneous people. Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black. But, somehow, it became offensive for the whites to have their own homeland. Behind all that build a wall talk is the real truth, but we allow people that don't understand the law to play the race and slavery cards in order to avoid an honest discussion.

Both sides want to use the courts to be the determinative factor. Sadly, the United States Supreme Court is the bastion of liberalism. Nobody is nominated to it until they pass the smell test of the American Bar Association. The ABA is the de facto vetting center for federal judges and United States Supreme Court nominees. The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States. So, now you know why I am being attacked and you have some idea of what you can do if the United States Supreme Court over-steps its authority.

O.K.

You two are pretty much on the same side with regards to government, the courts and the miserable mess our fed has created.

And you are correct....both sides look to the courts becasue we won't do what she suggests....blow them off. Like we should.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support that this is how it was supposed to be.

Well, to the point that we need to address their concerns...but they don't get to be the final arbiters on what will be and what won't.

That is why we elect people.

But now we elect morons (Adam Schitt, case in point)...and don't pay attention to the local stuff.
 
Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.

"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.



You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.

Get a grip.

That isn't her.

I can vouche for that.


Okay, I may have over-reacted. I accept your premise.
Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.

"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.



You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.

Get a grip.

That isn't her.

I can vouche for that.


Okay, I may have over-reacted. I accept your premise.

Thank you.

Now, I will say we need to be aligned and that people like you, myself and PoliticalChic need to coalesc and that is how we will have good conversations about how we can influence things.
 
Robert Bork disagrees with you.

He called the decision a mistake.

And credits it with starting the Civil War.

I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.



Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.

"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.



You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.



The vulgarity.....

It appears I've gotten under your scales simply by quoting you.


This:
You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.




I quoted you accurately, didn't I?

I would recommend against taunting.

After a little more reading, I think we won't agree on some things.

But we do agree on other things...the process.

I agree with your OP. What's lacking is the knowledge of most people on how this is supposed to work.
 
Robert Bork disagrees with you.

He called the decision a mistake.

And credits it with starting the Civil War.

I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.



Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.

"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.



You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.



The vulgarity.....

It appears I've gotten under your scales simply by quoting you.


This:
You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.




I quoted you accurately, didn't I?

What you said is all well and fine, EXCEPT that the Dred Scott decision did no such thing. Slaves were already considered property. And what do you think YOU are?

Ever watch COPS on tv? They used to call everyone a "subject." Now, that's a bit different than a suspect, but that subject terminology is what the legal enforcers call you. So, who, exactly is YOUR king?

The Dred Scott decision did NOT make people property. They were already property. YOU are someone's property and YOU, most likely will vote for some form of slavery because you don't understand the issue. I'm neither pro or anti-slavery. Thank you very much for asking (NOT.) I'm simply telling you what IS.

You are an ignorant individual that doesn't even understand basic high school civics trying to school someone who has a legal education. I was once a Justice of the Peace. They call them magistrates now. They are low level judges, so it's not like I'm working blind. Your lack of knowledge, education and experience doesn't bode well when you call me a fool. Better think about looking over your own resume' before worrying about mine.
 
John Jay stated that we give up some nautural rights to preserve the rest of them.
Sorry I'm late to this game and later in this thread Porter explains unalienable rights vs inalienable rights- unalienable rights can't be given up as they are not tangible- inalienable rights are grants and privileges which can be given up, or rescinded.
Unalienable rights can only be restricted or not exercised.
 
"The logic of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mid-June majority opinion for the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, outlawing employment discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered individuals, is so at odds with his previous jurisprudence and his character that the editors of the Wall Street Journal wonder if he’s been body-snatched by aliens.

As Columbia Law professor Philip Hamburger wrote, with some scorn, of earlier judges: “Why bother saving the court at the cost of giving up on the law?”



Either the Supreme Court should be disbanded, or at least, ignored.
 

Forum List

Back
Top