Discussion in 'Congress' started by Slashsnake, Oct 5, 2017.
Yes, that is something I can agree with.
You want to see how stupid other people are? What makes you think you have all the answers?
The correct answer to this would be the United States Supreme Court. In 1803 the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiters of what the law is.
"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe
The United States Supreme Court has bestowed upon other branches of government powers not listed in the Constitution... it's an amazing legal trick - The United States gets to circumvent the Constitution and do things expressly denied to them via the Tenth Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court gets to legislate from the bench, "making new law" as they call it - even when it involves over-turning their own precedents! Think about it:
What you know IS the law today 100 percent by statute and court rulings all the way up to the United States Supreme Court could be overruled by the Supreme Court that told you what the law meant.
NOBODY, not Jesus himself, overrules the United States Supreme Court and you cannot hold them accountable for their unconstitutional acts. The United States Supreme Court can over-turn ANYTHING the other branches do because of the power they gave to themselves. So much for the separate branches of government with the ability to hold each other in check.
Since you're going to school all the dumb asses. Do you think differently?
The silent branch though is really the most powerful. Sean Hannity, before he became famous, used to joke and tell me he worked for the fourth branch of government - the media.
1. Congress can rip the Supreme Court's jurisdiction from any new law, especially if they don't like what the judicial branch is doing.
2. Congress [Senate] has to approve of any new justice nominations.
3. Congress can impeach judges but not the other way around.
4. The Supreme Court sits the sidelines on issues unless it has something to do with someone's civil rights.
5. If Congress really wanted to, they could set limits on how long Supreme Court justices can serve.
6. Congress could break up court circuits such as ridiculous 9th circuit.
The Supreme Court also doesn't make law, that's what Congress is for. The judicial branch is to follow the law/interpret it. Judges think they can make law, but that is easily overruled by Congress when they're able to draft a bill overruling a judge's decision.
The executive branch also appoints the justices held by the Supreme Court, so the other two branches basically determine who represents the judicial branch in the first place. I think you're pretty stupid to assume:
1) The branch that makes laws that need to be followed by everyone, including the other two branches...
2) The branch that can pass laws by overriding an executive branch presidential veto...
3) A branch that can strip the judicial branch of its power to strike down a law...
4) The branch that can fire the president and Supreme Court justices...
5) Can declare war and set the military budget...
6) Can raise and lower taxes...
7) Plays a part in nominating Supreme Court justices and can delay or reject the president's wishes...
8) Can subpoena people from the other two branches for hearings...
9) Negotiates treaties with other nations...
10) Houses the only person in the country who can arrest the president...
11) Can change the size of the Supreme Court
12 ... and more.
.... Is not the strongest branch of the government.
Do you think the framers were stupid? They put the branch that's 100% elected by the people as the most powerful one. Anyone would half a brain would agree that the judicial branch is the weakest of the three.
You come here with half truths and total bullshit. It figures. Most people went to school and heard all that rubbish. The facts are that what is on paper is NOT how things work out in real life.
Yes, the United States Supreme Court does make new law. It's unconstitutional, but let me take your smart ass through the facts:
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State"
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
A few years later, another court ruling:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
The United States Supreme Court weighed in:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 )
So, wait a minute. The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it is not granted by the Constitution? So says the United States Supreme Court. That means, as the Texas ruling went, the Right is absolute. If the government does not grant a Right, but that Right exists then it must be an absolute Right. Yet how many stupid people are running around telling us that no Right is absolute? May we examine the facts once again?
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
“[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”
-- George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356
Seems the founding fathers and the early courts had a different view than the United States Supreme Court because the United States Supreme Court overruled the founding fathers, all the legislatures (state and federal) AND overruled their own standing precedent. Read it carefully:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
That ruling overruled the founding fathers, the laws of our country, and even standing precedents by earlier U.S. Supreme Court holdings.
Where in the HELL have your almighty federal legislators been for the last decade? In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court subtly tries to tell the American people that they are in the Rights granting business. They claim there are no absolute rights when I can cite you THOUSANDS of court cases, quotes from our founders, and statutes to the contrary. Even the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, not a limitation on the people!
When, in your lifetime, has the legislative department overruled the United States Supreme Court and told them they are NOT in the Rights granting business?
It looks more like you don't understand how to follow court interpretations and you change their meanings. You also seem to confuse a States Supreme Court ruling with the United States Supreme Courts ruling. They are not the same and the lower courts get overturned all the time. States courts rule on the states constitution, the United Stated Supreme Court rules on the United States Constitution. Being allowed to protect oneself or their family (bearing arms for a lawful purpose) is an absolute right (personal security and the right to life). Nunn v State deals with the state law and has no bearing beyond that state, just like Cockrum v State. Neither case is a contradiction with what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, and Heller didn't change or over rule either of those 2 state cases.
You're literally retarded if you think a branch that's able to be stripped of its power by the other branches, have its members impeached by another branch, and has its members picked by the other two branches is the most powerful. You clearly have no idea what you're ranting about either way...
And you're a fucking idiot not to expect that some people are going to believe you just because your dumb ass can attempt to talk down to others.
You are wrong. What's on paper is NOT the way things work out in real life. Your dumb ass couldn't even answer my questions. All you could do is try to sound superior to your fellow posters. Nice try, but no cigar.
Indeed. The Executive Branch under a declaration of martial law and backed by the Armed Forces could shut down the other two branches until such time as martial law is lifted.
And the Supreme Court could lift such a declaration with the stroke of a pen... not that the Constitution gives them the authority to second guess the legislature, but I've already shown what the Constitution is worth to that body.
Keep thinking that.
Separate names with a comma.