Which Ones Can We Count On?

[PoliticalChic]

None of 'em.
I suppose that, at one time or another, we all make the mistake of assigning a higher level of integrity and honesty to some stranger just because he has a title, is an 'expert,' professor, judge, some sort of bureaucrat.

But every one of 'em is simply a human being.....even the dope the Democrats claimed was god, Jesus, the messiah.



Here is a Republican politician, Justice of the Supreme Court, whose birthday is this very date,

Charles Evans Hughes
UNITED STATES JURIST AND STATESMAN
BORNApril 11, 1862
Glens Falls, New York
(Birthday tomorrow)
DIEDAugust 27, 1948 (aged 86)
Osterville, Massachusetts


The point of the story is that America was founded on the understanding that the Constitution is the 'law of the land.'
It is written in English, and requires no magical incantations to discover its meaning.
The job of a Justice is to judge a law against the words of the Constitution.


Hughes did that.....until he didn't.



To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 70.


Atta boy, Hughes!!! My hero!!!!

The US Constitution is inviolable!!!


Sort of......


Sadly, eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants anywhere in the nation.
Yup.....now he said the federalism on which the Constitution was ratified no longer existed.




See if this isn't gobbledygook.
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution. "
Charles Evans Hughes

 

[Gdjjr]

Who said a fine is a tax?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who said a fine is a tax?

Did you imagine that that post has something to do with the post you followed?


Try to articulate a point.

 

[Gdjjr]

Try to articulate a point.

Try to be intellectually honest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try to articulate a point.

Try to be intellectually honest.

So you really have no point.....just extreme loneliness????

Buy a dog.

 

[flack]

Try to articulate a point.

Try to be intellectually honest.

So you really have no point.....just extreme loneliness????

Buy a dog.

lol

 

[Gdjjr]

Buy a dog.

I have a cat- his name is Davey Crockett- would you care to take a wild guess as to why?

So you really have no point.....just extreme loneliness????

No ma'am- extreme happiness (as defined by me, not society or smart ass political commentators)- I'm a loner, always have been always will be. Davey and I have a mutual agreement; he doesn't bother me unless he wants to and I don't bother him unless he wants me to. Works out quite well for both of us. Being a loner affords the opportunity to observe, and I'm pretty good at it. My personality is analytical, and it was bolstered with some formal training- my heart is like that of an artist in that I see beauty where others may not- like the desert as an example-

My "point", and has been in several threads, not just your's, (though you may feel special,you ain't), is that intellectual honesty isn't many people's strong suit- especially in the political arena - I offer you an opportunity to prove me wrong about you and you deflect and dodge to continue on your merry, and *crowded*, way-

 

[rich stacy]

The point of the story is that America was founded on the understanding that the Constitution is the 'law of the land.'
It is written in English, and requires no magical incantations to discover its meaning.
The job of a Justice is to judge a law against the words of the Constitution.

The incredible thing about that statement comes when you read Antonin Scalias opinion in Heller V DC. Where he spent a large portion explaining how "the people" had a different meaning in different sections of the constitution.
That "magical incantation" of Scalia also explained that the first clause of the 2nd amendment did not limit the application of the second clause.

If you think the constitution is written in simple English, you neglect it was also written in words whose definition changed over time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point of the story is that America was founded on the understanding that the Constitution is the 'law of the land.'
It is written in English, and requires no magical incantations to discover its meaning.
The job of a Justice is to judge a law against the words of the Constitution.

The incredible thing about that statement comes when you read Antonin Scalias opinion in Heller V DC. Where he spent a large portion explaining how "the people" had a different meaning in different sections of the constitution.
That "magical incantation" of Scalia also explained that the first clause of the 2nd amendment did not limit the application of the second clause.

If you think the constitution is written in simple English, you neglect it was also written in words whose definition changed over time.

I didn't say 'simple English'.....I said 'English.'

I'm pretty good with that language.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

See who wrote the foreword?

 

[eagle1462010]

In times of crisis people look the other way as the Constitution gets pissed on...........

FDR was a shining example of it............They destroyed the Enumerated powers of the Federal Gov't and set this country on a course of it's eventual destruction.

My dog's name ......IS NOT YOURS TO GIVE........someone might understand that here.

 

[rich stacy]

The point of the story is that America was founded on the understanding that the Constitution is the 'law of the land.'
It is written in English, and requires no magical incantations to discover its meaning.
The job of a Justice is to judge a law against the words of the Constitution.

If you think the constitution is written in simple English, you neglect it was also written in words whose definition changed over time.

I didn't say 'simple English'.....I said 'English.'

I'm pretty good with that language.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.

Strange point. Since anyone could do a similar search for all the times that "internet" or "blogger" appeared in literature or newspapers from 1789 thru the next century, and conclude that it had no protections in the 1st amendment.

 

[jwoodie]

Who said a fine is a tax?

John Roberts? And your point is...?

 

[rich stacy]

Who said a fine is a tax?

John Roberts? And your point is...?

Does the Constitution give congress the power to lay and collect "fines"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point of the story is that America was founded on the understanding that the Constitution is the 'law of the land.'
It is written in English, and requires no magical incantations to discover its meaning.
The job of a Justice is to judge a law against the words of the Constitution.

If you think the constitution is written in simple English, you neglect it was also written in words whose definition changed over time.

I didn't say 'simple English'.....I said 'English.'

I'm pretty good with that language.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.

Strange point. Since anyone could do a similar search for all the times that "internet" or "blogger" appeared in literature or newspapers from 1789 thru the next century, and conclude that it had no protections in the 1st amendment.

I just corrected your 'simple English' statement.


The use of the Constitution, and not caselaw, is how decisions should be made.

 

[rich stacy]

The use of the Constitution, and not caselaw, is how decisions should be made.

Then you would throw out Stare Decicus?
And require they "reinvent the wheel" with each new case?
That;s an interesting legal precept, but hardly a practical one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The use of the Constitution, and not caselaw, is how decisions should be made.

Then you would throw out Stare Decicus?
And require they "reinvent the wheel" with each new case?
That;s an interesting legal precept, but hardly a practical one.

There is no such thing as 'stare decisis.'

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴



The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

[Blues Man]

None of 'em.
I suppose that, at one time or another, we all make the mistake of assigning a higher level of integrity and honesty to some stranger just because he has a title, is an 'expert,' professor, judge, some sort of bureaucrat.

But every one of 'em is simply a human being.....even the dope the Democrats claimed was god, Jesus, the messiah.



Here is a Republican politician, Justice of the Supreme Court, whose birthday is this very date,
View attachment 322063
Charles Evans Hughes
UNITED STATES JURIST AND STATESMAN
BORNApril 11, 1862
Glens Falls, New York
(Birthday tomorrow)
DIEDAugust 27, 1948 (aged 86)
Osterville, Massachusetts


The point of the story is that America was founded on the understanding that the Constitution is the 'law of the land.'
It is written in English, and requires no magical incantations to discover its meaning.
The job of a Justice is to judge a law against the words of the Constitution.


Hughes did that.....until he didn't.



To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 70.


Atta boy, Hughes!!! My hero!!!!

The US Constitution is inviolable!!!


Sort of......


Sadly, eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants anywhere in the nation.
Yup.....now he said the federalism on which the Constitution was ratified no longer existed.




See if this isn't gobbledygook.
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution. "
Charles Evans Hughes

Nothing new there

Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, carried out one of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology.

www.simplypsychology.org

 

[rich stacy]

There is no such thing as 'stare decisis.'

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

You are actually proving two of my three points.

1) usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed

Where the meaning of the simple Englsh words has changed or evolved.

2) The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws

Where again, the meaning of simple English words needed to be clarified.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no such thing as 'stare decisis.'

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

You are actually proving two of my three points.

1) usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed

Where the meaning of the simple Englsh words has changed or evolved.

2) The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws

Where again, the meaning of simple English words needed to be clarified.

I proved that there is no such thing as stare decisis.

I wonder why you choose to ignore that.


Here is something else you are unaware of.


As the Constitution is the law of the land, case law is simply opinions of windbags.....

It is the only law governing America and Americans.



Here's your lesson...take notes:

1. Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.

... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


2. [Roscoe Pound] was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions



3. Instead of following the Constitution, 'social justice' is to be pursued from the bench by following the dictates of unelected judges.....caselaw.

"Christopher Columbus Langdell ....Before Langdell's tenure, the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. The case method has since been adopted and improved upon by schools in other disciplines, such as business, public policy, and education. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no excuse for this corruption of jurisprudence except for a hatred of America.

 

[rich stacy]

I proved that there is no such thing as stare decisis.

I wonder why you choose to ignore that.

Ignoring the rest of what you posted as just fluff I didn't bother to read because of your constantly posting the same thing over and over, but in larger volume from talking points you've saved for eons.

If there is no stare decisis, do you agree that Chief Justice John Roberts should be impeached and removed from the USSC because he lied about it under oath?