What the TEA Parties Want...

[DiamondDave]

Here... to help you out

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

c'mon jokey.... not a lot of text for you to go thru.. even with your limited cranial capacity... just simply point out where it is stated in the constitution where your assertion is even remotely supported

And since you guys tried to use Wiki... from wiki itself

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the federal government of the United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dave, I will let you in on a secret: American constitutional and judicial history did not end in 1787.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, I will let you in on a secret: American constitutional and judicial history did not end in 1787.

Nope... hence why we have the amendment process which is used to add or subtract from federal government powers...

Now... quit your beckpedaling... and simply point out where your assertion is even remotely supported in the constitution, which is indeed the supreme law of the land and is where the federal government receives it's mandates for powers (which, are strictly stated and enumerated)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dave, once again your sophomoric inability to frame an argument continues. Now put your postings into a context for argument. Remember that judicial/constitutional history does not end in 1787.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, once again your sophomoric inability to frame an argument continues. Now put your postings into a context for argument. Remember that judicial/constitutional history does not end in 1787.

Again... did not say that they did... hence why powers can be granted or taken away from the federal government (including the judicial branch) by constitutional amendment....

I have repeatedly shown and explained to you that the powers of the federal government are laid out and granted by the constitution itself...

You seem to be completely unable to show even one smidgen of support from the constitution to back up your assertion of granted powers held by the SC... now please, either shut the fuck up, admit your stance is completely unsupported, or simply point out where in the constitution that your assertion is even remotely supported

Should not be too hard, jokey... it's a pretty short document that is written in pretty plain english

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dave, you are a fail then. Let's move on.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, you are a fail then. Let's move on.

No jokey... I have shown you the actual text of the constitution in support my my stance... you have yet to show one single smidgen of supporting information within the constitution that backs up any of your claims... all I am doing is asking you to either shut the fuck up and stop making your claim, admit your stance is completely unsupported, or simply point out where in the constitution that your assertion is even remotely supported.... your choice... just tell us which one it is

It looks as though you may have chosen to shut the fuck up... but we're trying to clarify that

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then tell us what Article III really means. Give us your interp.

 

[DiamondDave]

Then tell us what Article III really means. Give us your interp.

Right after you try and show us, as requested, what part of the constitution even remotely stated support or empowerment of the SC or federal courts to reinterpret the constitution.... I know you're trying to dodge as much as you can... but it is indeed a simple request that you should be able to point to the words or section that grants to power as you say

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, son, you made the claim. Support it. Posting the constitution does not mean anything. Give us your best shot.

In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong. You have to post your support.

You have not done that.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, son, you made the claim. Support it. Posting the constitution does not mean anything. Give us your best shot.

In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong. You have to post your support.

You have not done that.

No son... you made the claim that this was a power of the SC.... I showed my claim that there is nothing within the constitution that gives such a power to the SC (I have posted for you, word for word, the exact powers indeed granted to the judicial branch)... I have also supported my claim that the constitution is what grants powers to the federal government.. and supported my claim that all powers not granted to the federal government are in the hands of the states or the individual citizens..

You have failed, jokey... you are a blow-hard disingenuous piece of shit who will not back up anything you state with any sort of fact....

Put up or shut up, motherfucker

 

[geauxtohell]

No, son, you made the claim. Support it. Posting the constitution does not mean anything. Give us your best shot.

In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong. You have to post your support.

You have not done that.

No son... you made the claim that this was a power of the SC.... I showed my claim that there is nothing within the constitution that gives such a power to the SC (I have posted for you, word for word, the exact powers indeed granted to the judicial branch)... I have also supported my claim that the constitution is what grants powers to the federal government.. and supported my claim that all powers not granted to the federal government are in the hands of the states or the individual citizens..

You have failed, jokey... you are a blow-hard disingenuous piece of shit who will not back up anything you state with any sort of fact....

Put up or shut up, motherfucker

The fact that you guys have been bickering over this issue for the past three pages kind of re-iterates my point that defining the constitution isn't a simple matter of reading the document and thus terms like "protect the constitution" are just flowery language that accomplish nothing.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, son, you made the claim. Support it. Posting the constitution does not mean anything. Give us your best shot.

In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong. You have to post your support.

You have not done that.

No son... you made the claim that this was a power of the SC.... I showed my claim that there is nothing within the constitution that gives such a power to the SC (I have posted for you, word for word, the exact powers indeed granted to the judicial branch)... I have also supported my claim that the constitution is what grants powers to the federal government.. and supported my claim that all powers not granted to the federal government are in the hands of the states or the individual citizens..

You have failed, jokey... you are a blow-hard disingenuous piece of shit who will not back up anything you state with any sort of fact....

Put up or shut up, motherfucker

The fact that you guys have been bickering over this issue for the past three pages kind of re-iterates my point that defining the constitution isn't a simple matter of reading the document and thus terms like "protect the constitution" are just flowery language that accomplish nothing.

That is why I don't sloganeer with such a statement... I do state, however, that we should ABIDE by the constitution as a nation and that any and all changes, additions, or deletions to the constitution MUST go thru the amendment process

A general and basic understanding of the constitution should show most any logical person that government has indeed over stepped it's legal boundaries and has morphed into an overgrown bastardization of what was intended... all in the name of political power and payback

 

[geauxtohell]

That is why I don't sloganeer with such a statement...

So I am not alone in thinking that "protect the constitution" as a movement's number 1 issue is a little lame?

I mean, what in the hell does it mean?

I do state, however, that we should ABIDE by the constitution as a nation and that any and all changes, additions, or deletions to the constitution MUST go thru the amendment process

A general and basic understanding of the constitution should show most any logical person that government has indeed over stepped it's legal boundaries and has morphed into an overgrown bastardization of what was intended... all in the name of political power and payback

So you actually favor hitting the reset button on judicial review/Marbury v. Madison?

BTW, how would you define the term "arms" in the second amendment? Who does define it?

 

[DiamondDave]

arm
2   /ɑrm/ Show Spelled[ahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

Yes indeed.. I would hit the reset button on that, as it was one of the very early attempts at the expansion of governmental control without constitutional amendment... it was improper for the court to consider any issues beyond its jurisdiction

 

[geauxtohell]

arm
2   /ɑrm/ Show Spelled[ahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

Now put that in today's terms: the average citizen has a constitutional right to AT-4s? Machine Guns? Tanks? Single Shot Assault Rifles? Fully Automatic Assault Rifles?

What defines "free speech"? Should their be limits? Should the Phelps family be able to picket soldier's funerals under their first amendment rights? The SCOTUS just issued a writ on that issue, so look for a 1st amendment decision to come down in October.

Yes indeed.. I would hit the reset button on that, as it was one of the very early attempts at the expansion of governmental control without constitutional amendment... it was improper for the court to consider any issues beyond its jurisdiction

I won't argue your opinion. I think Marbury V. Madison has served our nation well for over 210 years. I'll leave it to legal scholars to bicker about the constitutionality of the matter.

However, it re-affirms that the constitution is not, in fact, a document that any two Americans who have read it can agree on.

 

[DiamondDave]

arm
2   /ɑrm/ Show Spelled[ahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

Now put that in today's terms: the average citizen has a constitutional right to AT-4s? Machine Guns? Tanks? Single Shot Assault Rifles? Fully Automatic Assault Rifles?

What defines "free speech"? Should their be limits? Should the Phelps family be able to picket soldier's funerals under their first amendment rights? The SCOTUS just issued a writ on that issue, so look for a 1st amendment decision to come down in October.

Yes indeed.. I would hit the reset button on that, as it was one of the very early attempts at the expansion of governmental control without constitutional amendment... it was improper for the court to consider any issues beyond its jurisdiction

I won't argue your opinion. I think Marbury V. Madison has served our nation well for over 210 years. I'll leave it to legal scholars to bicker about the constitutionality of the matter.

However, it re-affirms that the constitution is not, in fact, a document that any two Americans who have read it can agree on.

I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government... and why?? Because the limitations and charges are not laid out in the constitution, which is what grants the federal government its power and boundaries.. and because we don't have those defined, the SC has acted like so many other politicians, and has expanded its power for its own gain

As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government by Marbury v. Madison or government by Dave. OK. I know for which I vote.

 

[DiamondDave]

Government by Marbury v. Madison or government by Dave. OK. I know for which I vote.

Government empowered and limited by the constitution or unsubstantiated and basis-less bullshit by Jokey.. I know which one any sane person would or should choose

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dave, once you again, you lose. Read the Constitution, son, and then live by it.