The Oath of Office

[DGS49]

You fucking people are starting to piss be off. You make broad, definitive statements about the Constitution and when asked to cite exactly what in the Constitution is the basis of the statement you come back with (another) sophomoric one-line bullshit response.

"Rat-Shit-Fan," you say, "Actually, they would be violating the Constitution if they don't go along with a federal court ruling. I do wish people would read the Constitution before they start talking about. Article III, section 2."

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The Constitution doesn't mention any Federal Court but the United States Supreme Court. NOWHERE does it say that state courts are subject to the meandering bullshit whims of a Federal District Court Judge. They are subject to USSC precedents, NONE of which are on point. If you think otherwise, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You say "The example is wrong." Put up or shut up. Socialized Medicine IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION! Why the fuck do you think Justice Roberts had to deem the fine for non-participation to be a tax? If he hadn't done so, the whole thing would have been tossed, because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT PERMITTED TO MANDATE THAT WE ALL BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

If you believe otherwise, cite the provision of the Constitution that permits it. (And if you even mention the "general welfare" wording, you are disqualified from further discussion because you are an ignoramous). Cite the USSC decision that permits socialized medicine. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[Disir]

Your meandering bullshit started with your first post. You set the stage. Realizing your mistake you then shifted gears. Have a stroke at the computer.

 

[longknife]

Come, come children. Let's play nice.

 

[PratchettFan]

You fucking people are starting to piss be off. You make broad, definitive statements about the Constitution and when asked to cite exactly what in the Constitution is the basis of the statement you come back with (another) sophomoric one-line bullshit response.

"Rat-Shit-Fan," you say, "Actually, they would be violating the Constitution if they don't go along with a federal court ruling. I do wish people would read the Constitution before they start talking about. Article III, section 2."

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The Constitution doesn't mention any Federal Court but the United States Supreme Court. NOWHERE does it say that state courts are subject to the meandering bullshit whims of a Federal District Court Judge. They are subject to USSC precedents, NONE of which are on point. If you think otherwise, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You say "The example is wrong." Put up or shut up. Socialized Medicine IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION! Why the fuck do you think Justice Roberts had to deem the fine for non-participation to be a tax? If he hadn't done so, the whole thing would have been tossed, because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT PERMITTED TO MANDATE THAT WE ALL BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

If you believe otherwise, cite the provision of the Constitution that permits it. (And if you even mention the "general welfare" wording, you are disqualified from further discussion because you are an ignoramous). Cite the USSC decision that permits socialized medicine. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Ok. I will attempt to explain this to you.

Article III Section 1. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Please note this is the definition of "Judicial Power" which includes the Supreme Court and "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Therefore, under the Constitution the Judicial Power is the federal court system. It does not mention state courts as part of the Judicial Power, which are not ordained and established by Congress. Are you following this? Because it is difficult to make it any simpler than that.

Article III Section 2. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...."

Again, I would attempt to explain this but it would be difficult to make the language any simpler. If you can't grasp it, then further explanation would be pointless. Perhaps taking a class in Constitutional law might help.

What this means is that it is the federal courts whose power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, not the state courts. They are inferior to the federal courts. So a state courts which ignores federal court rulings is, in fact, acting in violation of the Constitution.

I hope that helped you.

As to socialized medicine.... as you point out the Supreme Court has already heard a case on this and did not find it unconstitutional. We already have socialized medicine and have had for decades. It is called medicare. There is nothing in the Constitution which says the federal government cannot do this and until the Supreme Court rules they can't (highly unlikely) - they can.

I do wish you would take the time to read the Constitution. I mean actually read it rather than just believe what other people have told you to believe about it.

 

[Christophera]

When a public official swears to "protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution, what does that actually mean?

Can a legislator, for example, without violating his/her oath of office, vote for a bill that s/he believes violates some provision of the Constitution, on the basis that it is not his/her job to make that determination - it is the job of the Federal Courts? Or should the decision to vote one way or another be based on that legislator's good faith opinion of the constitutionality of the bill in question?

It seems to me that any legislative initiative should be subject to a three-part evaluation, as follows: (1) Is it Constitutional, (2) Is it a good idea, and (3) is it fiscally prudent?

To give a specific example, what if the legislator considers that an initiative is a GREAT idea, but is totally unconstitutional? Let's say we have a draft law that provides for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE in the U.S. It is a system that is thoroughly thought-out, that avoids the various problems that exist in countries that have various forms of socialized medicine, and it virtually guarantees that every American will get wonderful health care from cradle to grave, at a cost that is reasonable for everyone?

Should the legislator vote for this law? (Hint: This law would be totally unconstitutional)

Secondary question: If the legislator votes for this law, is s/he violating his/her oath of office?

How can an unconstitutional law be 'great?'

Yea, that's the question.

Spin, without comprehensive alternate, available information, that is authoritative.

Or authoritative from a trusted source.

Forums like this one would be it, but there are covert groups infiltrating that make bad info look good and good info look bad.
When one of the people tries to correct it, the group fouls the effort so the public hoping to find an authority, or at least on that can be accountable, they are only confused.

Or, an unconstitutional law is made to look great and threads like this are created to demonstrate the confusion.

 

[Christophera]

I do wish you would take the time to read the Constitution. I mean actually read it rather than just believe what other people have told you to believe about it.

If you could admit the intents of the constitution defined in the Declaration of Independence, which I know you've read, you might get a start on showing you are something other than a cognitive infiltrator distorting through selectivity what the intent was.

All these type issues are after the fact of a major infiltration of government you work to protect. That infiltration is marked by the act of 1871.
Neither the Supreme Court or congress is constitutional since then, which is why the nation is racked with instabilities and enforcement of civil rights is almost non existent.

If the purpose of free speech was not so far abridged, the situation would not have gotten so bad that people like you might actually be taken seriously.

 

[DGS49]

Pratt-Shit-Fann:

You apparently took a "Constitutional Law" class from someone like Our Beloved President.

(a) The Constitution says what it says.
(b) The USSC can, by INTERPRETATION, modify the Constitution, or make shit up. It's unfortunate but true. They made shit up w/r/t abortion, for one example.
(c) The lower Federal Courts, as well as all other U.S. courts, are bound (in cases where it applies) by (1) the U.S. Constitution and (2) the USSC's interpretations thereof.
(d) Federal District Court judges DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to make shit up.
(e) The USSC has had the opportunity, more than once, to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but they have not done so. Thus the PRECEDENT of 225+ years of the validity of state laws limiting marriage to ONE man and ONE woman must prevail.
(f) Therefore. a Federal District Court judge DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to declare the existence of a new "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, and the Alabama Supreme Court RIGHTLY told that judge-ette to go pound salt.

To those "Constitutional" scholars who believe that the Federal government has the power to create socialized medicine (Government provided and controlled, as in Europe), need to understand the concept of "limited government." The Federal Government (mainly Congress) ONLY has the powers articulated in Article I, Section 8. Read the Tenth Amendment, for Christ sake. It is not a difficult concept. Just because Congress ignores it, doesn't mean that's what the Constitution says.

 

[PratchettFan]

Pratt-Shit-Fann:

You apparently took a "Constitutional Law" class from someone like Our Beloved President.

(a) The Constitution says what it says.
(b) The USSC can, by INTERPRETATION, modify the Constitution, or make shit up. It's unfortunate but true. They made shit up w/r/t abortion, for one example.
(c) The lower Federal Courts, as well as all other U.S. courts, are bound (in cases where it applies) by (1) the U.S. Constitution and (2) the USSC's interpretations thereof.
(d) Federal District Court judges DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to make shit up.
(e) The USSC has had the opportunity, more than once, to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but they have not done so. Thus the PRECEDENT of 225+ years of the validity of state laws limiting marriage to ONE man and ONE woman must prevail.
(f) Therefore. a Federal District Court judge DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to declare the existence of a new "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, and the Alabama Supreme Court RIGHTLY told that judge-ette to go pound salt.

To those "Constitutional" scholars who believe that the Federal government has the power to create socialized medicine (Government provided and controlled, as in Europe), need to understand the concept of "limited government." The Federal Government (mainly Congress) ONLY has the powers articulated in Article I, Section 8. Read the Tenth Amendment, for Christ sake. It is not a difficult concept. Just because Congress ignores it, doesn't mean that's what the Constitution says.

I've never met the president, so I'm really not in a position to compare him to my constitutional law professors. However, unlike you, I have taken constitutional law classes and have actually read the Constitution. You are free to believe whatever you like. It's only the courts that matter in this arena and the judges and justices have also taken constitutional law classes.

Interesting take on my screen name. I take note I am so important to you that you would go to that effort just to get my attention.

 

[paddymurphy]

When a public official swears to "protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution, what does that actually mean?

Can a legislator, for example, without violating his/her oath of office, vote for a bill that s/he believes violates some provision of the Constitution, on the basis that it is not his/her job to make that determination - it is the job of the Federal Courts? Or should the decision to vote one way or another be based on that legislator's good faith opinion of the constitutionality of the bill in question?

It seems to me that any legislative initiative should be subject to a three-part evaluation, as follows: (1) Is it Constitutional, (2) Is it a good idea, and (3) is it fiscally prudent?

To give a specific example, what if the legislator considers that an initiative is a GREAT idea, but is totally unconstitutional? Let's say we have a draft law that provides for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE in the U.S. It is a system that is thoroughly thought-out, that avoids the various problems that exist in countries that have various forms of socialized medicine, and it virtually guarantees that every American will get wonderful health care from cradle to grave, at a cost that is reasonable for everyone?

Should the legislator vote for this law? (Hint: This law would be totally unconstitutional)

Secondary question: If the legislator votes for this law, is s/he violating his/her oath of office?

The law would not be totally unconstitutional What constitutional provision would it violate? Ever hear of medicare?

 

[paddymurphy]

Every law passed by both Houses and signed by the President should be reviewed and ruled on by the Supreme Court before it becomes Law.

On that issue the Court has said no way.

Lazy assholes, that's what they were created for. I guess a full time job would interfere with their lives!

No, that is not what they were created for. Unless there is a case or controversy over a law, they have nothing to decide. It is called a balance of powers for a reason. The three branches of the government are equal. The people are sovereign. The people, through the power to amend the constitution, can override any Supreme Court decision they want. The people can amend the constitution to ban abortion or gay marriage; they can amend it to make access to health care a right or to declare that corporations are not to be considered persons pursuant to the first amendment.

 

[paddymurphy]

Pratt-Shit-Fann:

You apparently took a "Constitutional Law" class from someone like Our Beloved President.

(a) The Constitution says what it says.
(b) The USSC can, by INTERPRETATION, modify the Constitution, or make shit up. It's unfortunate but true. They made shit up w/r/t abortion, for one example.
(c) The lower Federal Courts, as well as all other U.S. courts, are bound (in cases where it applies) by (1) the U.S. Constitution and (2) the USSC's interpretations thereof.
(d) Federal District Court judges DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to make shit up.
(e) The USSC has had the opportunity, more than once, to declare that there is a "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, but they have not done so. Thus the PRECEDENT of 225+ years of the validity of state laws limiting marriage to ONE man and ONE woman must prevail.
(f) Therefore. a Federal District Court judge DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to declare the existence of a new "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, and the Alabama Supreme Court RIGHTLY told that judge-ette to go pound salt.

To those "Constitutional" scholars who believe that the Federal government has the power to create socialized medicine (Government provided and controlled, as in Europe), need to understand the concept of "limited government." The Federal Government (mainly Congress) ONLY has the powers articulated in Article I, Section 8. Read the Tenth Amendment, for Christ sake. It is not a difficult concept. Just because Congress ignores it, doesn't mean that's what the Constitution says.

And you took your constitutional law class at what institution?

 

[paddymurphy]

Consider this question as it applies to what's going on in Alabama on the "gay marriage" issue.

We have a Federal District Court judge (a Democrat WOMAN, if you please) who has GONE BEYOND what the USSC has ever said, and has found, on her own, that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment prohibits any state from refusing to marry same-sex couples.

The Alabama Supreme Court, itself bound to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by the USSC), has said that (a) there is nothing in the U.S. or state Constitution that requires the states to recognize same-sex marriages, (c) there is no CONTROLLING legal precedent otherwise, and (c) the State of Alabama rightfully has decided not to recognize them, THEREFORE, "we" will not abide by the decision of that rogue Federal District Court judge.

Are the Alabama Court members violating their oath of office (which requires them, among other things, to abide by the United States Constitution), when they refuse to go along with that Federal District Court's ruling?

I think not.

So, you ignore the fact that several dozen other Federal Judges, men and women, democrat and republican, liberal, moderate and conservative came to the same conclusion as this judge? When you have to be dishonest to advance an argument, it kind of undermines the validity of the argument. You are correct that there was no "controlling" precedent; there exists several cases that are persuasive precedent, including several decisions from Courts of Appeals. Her ruling, and the ruling of the other couple of dozen judges, were also logical extensions of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Windsor and Romer v. Evans holdings of the Supreme Court. To call it a "rogue" federal Court is a lie, plain and simple. As for whether the Alabama Supreme Court justices were violating their oaths, hard to say. But, any state official directly ordered by a federal judge to not enforce a law that judge has determined to be unconstitutional, in the absence of a stay from a higher federal court, is in contempt and can be punished for that. Ultimately, due to the Supremacy Clause, if a federal Court enjoins the enforcement of a state law, the state courts are bound to obey that ruling unless and until that ruling is stayed or overturned.

 

[paddymurphy]

You fucking people are starting to piss be off. You make broad, definitive statements about the Constitution and when asked to cite exactly what in the Constitution is the basis of the statement you come back with (another) sophomoric one-line bullshit response.

"Rat-Shit-Fan," you say, "Actually, they would be violating the Constitution if they don't go along with a federal court ruling. I do wish people would read the Constitution before they start talking about. Article III, section 2."

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The Constitution doesn't mention any Federal Court but the United States Supreme Court. NOWHERE does it say that state courts are subject to the meandering bullshit whims of a Federal District Court Judge. They are subject to USSC precedents, NONE of which are on point. If you think otherwise, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You say "The example is wrong." Put up or shut up. Socialized Medicine IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION! Why the fuck do you think Justice Roberts had to deem the fine for non-participation to be a tax? If he hadn't done so, the whole thing would have been tossed, because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT PERMITTED TO MANDATE THAT WE ALL BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

If you believe otherwise, cite the provision of the Constitution that permits it. (And if you even mention the "general welfare" wording, you are disqualified from further discussion because you are an ignoramous). Cite the USSC decision that permits socialized medicine. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You seem to off you meds. Take them, take a nap and come back and try to act like an adult.

 

[regent]

Or as President Jackson is supposedly to have said: The Supreme Court made their decision now let them enforce it. The Court also by-passes a number of Court cases saying that it is a political issue and not their baby.