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.
Well, I find that the most powerful branch is the one I can lift, but more importantly, one that has been shaped well to fit My hand so that it swings well as a club. To large a branch, say a redwood trunk, would be far to difficult to wield so the scope of the branch is necessary in order to determine which is the most powerful.C'mon folks, lets here your opinion... I want to see how stupid most of you are. Which is the most powerful branch and why? Go...
Or the people retake control of their govenment.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.
Uh, Lol...
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."
Samuel Adams
“[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?
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.
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.
One only needs to state the following to make Humorme look ignorant: Dred-Scott decision overturned via the Congressional 1866 Civil Rights Act.C'mon folks, lets here your opinion... I want to see how stupid most of you are. Which is the most powerful branch and why? Go...
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.
Uh, Lol...
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."
Samuel Adams
“[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?
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...
Well, I find that the most powerful branch is the one I can lift, but more importantly, one that has been shaped well to fit My hand so that it swings well as a club. To large a branch, say a redwood trunk, would be far to difficult to wield so the scope of the branch is necessary in order to determine which is the most powerful.C'mon folks, lets here your opinion... I want to see how stupid most of you are. Which is the most powerful branch and why? Go...
It helps also to use a hardwood. Can you imagine how ineffective a balsa wood branch would be?
Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
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.
Uh, Lol...
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."
Samuel Adams
“[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?
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.
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.
Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
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."
Samuel Adams
“[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?
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.
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
Keep thinking that.
Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
Not to deflect from the OP but I think the court is a huge issue and the American people do not recognize it. They view the court as this apolitical entity. That is hardly the case at all. If the American public put half as much energy into who was selected for the court as they do with the trifling minutia of the other branches (I did not inhale/Grab her by the pussy) then we may be a little better off.Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
When was the last time this happened? True power, is power projected.Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
See, this is what you don't get. The Supreme Court can't declare shit. There's no law that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Just because they call themselves the final the final arbiter, doesn't make it true... Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
When was the last time this happened? True power, is power projected.Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
See, this is what you don't get. The Supreme Court can't declare shit. There's no law that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Just because they call themselves the final the final arbiter, doesn't make it true... Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
When was the last time this happened? Exactly.Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
That's all well and good but the OP was "The Most Powerful Branch".
As I stated...true power..is power projected. As far as congress is concerned...they might be able to do a lot...but they are not projecting it. Right now...the court runs the show because they have declared themselves the final arbiter and the other two branches have been complicit lap dogs in the proceedings.
So..once again...
When was the last time this happened? Exactly.Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
When was the last time this happened? True power, is power projected.Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
See, this is what you don't get. The Supreme Court can't declare shit. There's no law that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Just because they call themselves the final the final arbiter, doesn't make it true... Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
But it is still allowed to happen.
Congress is the Supreme Court's boss... They hire and fire judges, have the power to overrule them, subpoena them, and can strip the judicial branch from carrying out their power.
On the flip side, judges cannot even have a Congressmen arrested for committing murder if they're on their way to a Congressional hearing, nor can they fire a Congressmen, or ultimately create law limiting what the Legislative branch can do.
When was the last time this happened? True power, is power projected.Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
See, this is what you don't get. The Supreme Court can't declare shit. There's no law that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Just because they call themselves the final the final arbiter, doesn't make it true... Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
Why would Taney have been ousted when he was ruling on what the law was? Now, why do you think Congress took his ruling and then came up with the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which then nullified his, of the time correct, ruling?When was the last time this happened? True power, is power projected.Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
See, this is what you don't get. The Supreme Court can't declare shit. There's no law that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Just because they call themselves the final the final arbiter, doesn't make it true... Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
But it is still allowed to happen.
Congress is the Supreme Court's boss... They hire and fire judges, have the power to overrule them, subpoena them, and can strip the judicial branch from carrying out their power.
On the flip side, judges cannot even have a Congressmen arrested for committing murder if they're on their way to a Congressional hearing, nor can they fire a Congressmen, or ultimately create law limiting what the Legislative branch can do.
In your life time how many U.S. Supreme Court Justices got fired?
Even Roger Taney, the Chief Justice who wrote the most unpopular court ruling in American history in Dred Scott v Sanford, wherein blacks could not be citizens was never ousted from office.
And again, in practice, NOT theory, the United States Supreme Court has granted to Congress powers that Congress was never given. What kinds of jobs do you know of wherein the employees grant their boss a power they didn't have before?
Judicial Review predates the Constitution, as it was part of English Law. Again, I strongly suggest you learn how to read the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist #78.When was the last time this happened? True power, is power projected.Judicial, without a doubt. If it is derived as a system of checks and balances then who checks the SC? Rulings from the highest court are considered final. Court rulings drive subsequent laws and challenges to existing laws are run through the court. In addition, though approved by the Senate, members serve for lifetime.
The SC is the final arbiter and saying on everything and anything of real societal weight.
To add to your post, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally declared themselves to be the final arbiter, and neither branch slapped their wrist, telling them their ONLY authority is to interpret the law... not to bestow powers to other branches of government, not to REINTERPRET the law once they've already ruled on it, and not to circumvent the Constitution with their opinions not rooted in law.
See, this is what you don't get. The Supreme Court can't declare shit. There's no law that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Just because they call themselves the final the final arbiter, doesn't make it true... Justice rulings can be overruled by Congress, in which then Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the matter.
The Supreme Court claimed that power in 1803 (see Marbury v Madison.) To date, even Jesus himself has not challenged the United States Supreme Court. BTW, that is first year law school (required knowledge of every person that even considers working in the law.)
