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.
What I miss is people who love this country and it's Constitution more than they love any one man. What I miss is people who treasure their freedom and fear tyranny. What I miss is people who want a strong and stable government and not a strong man and a cult of personality.This country is based on the checks and balances in the Constitution. Are you saying one branch can seize the power delegated to another branch? Sounds like tyranny to me.
Do you vote for Supreme Court Justices????
How do you explain a paid apparatchik for the communist ACLU has been a Justice for over a quarter century.
And another justice doesn't believe in free speech.
The Constitution is written in English...It need not be interpreted, and anyone can apply it.
The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
If the Supreme Court declares a law to be unconstitutional it can't be enforced. If it is the rule of law is history and we'll soon have another Hitler or Stalin.
This is what I'm saying, and have said.
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
What part did you miss, you moron????
The President does not have to be the target of a contempt charge, his underlings can be the targets.Judges can hold people in contempt and put them in jail indefinitely. The people via Congress can neutralize misbehavior of the courts, including the Supreme Court. You will never be smarter or even as smart as our founding fathers.Brutus and the OP are misinforming and distorting. Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.=
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Nothing in the Constitution mandated that their pronouncements need be followed; they can be ignored.
The same applies to your posts.
Once Donald Dork realized the courts would be his equal and a problem for him, he began bad-mouthing them and demonizing them. What we have here, with this thread, is a loyal lemming following her marching orders.
Name a President who the Court has had jailed for contempt.
Name a Supreme Court Justice how has been impeached by Congress.
Seems I'm a lot smarter than you, huh?
Justice Chase was impeached.
The post is spot on topic. Stop your whining. Stick to your insult responses, you're lost without them.The fastest way for neutralizing the court is by increasing or decreasing the number of Justices on the court.
Sorry....you will not be allowed to change the subject.
If a President ignores the SC ruling that a policy or law is Unconstitutional, he will go down in history as engaging in an unlawful act....eg a criminal. Made to order for an impeachment hearing, wouldn't you say?How about the persons we elect?
Say.....the President?
1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
So saith the Constitution.
2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling
Exactly as it should be!
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Ask the question!
Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.
What I miss is people who love this country and it's Constitution more than they love any one man. What I miss is people who treasure their freedom and fear tyranny. What I miss is people who want a strong and stable government and not a strong man and a cult of personality.This country is based on the checks and balances in the Constitution. Are you saying one branch can seize the power delegated to another branch? Sounds like tyranny to me.
Do you vote for Supreme Court Justices????
How do you explain a paid apparatchik for the communist ACLU has been a Justice for over a quarter century.
And another justice doesn't believe in free speech.
The Constitution is written in English...It need not be interpreted, and anyone can apply it.
The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
If the Supreme Court declares a law to be unconstitutional it can't be enforced. If it is the rule of law is history and we'll soon have another Hitler or Stalin.
This is what I'm saying, and have said.
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
What part did you miss, you moron????
I also even miss the horror the Right noisily suffered under Obama and his executive orders.
None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.If a President ignores the SC ruling that a policy or law is Unconstitutional, he will go down in history as engaging in an unlawful act....eg a criminal. Made to order for an impeachment hearing, wouldn't you say?How about the persons we elect?
Say.....the President?
1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
So saith the Constitution.
2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling
Exactly as it should be!
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Ask the question!
Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.
So what???
You'll go down in history as a dunce....do you care?
BTW....for edification:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
Oh.....and now we can add Trump to the list.
And, maybe you should develop a backbone and consider why you are so quick to take orders.
I'm not.
We are still waiting for one of you to tell us specifically what he will be impeached for.Trump should be careful about bad mouthing the Chief Justice. If he gets impeached, the Chief Justice will supervise and conduct his trial in the Senate.This country is based on the checks and balances in the Constitution. Are you saying one branch can seize the power delegated to another branch? Sounds like tyranny to me.
Do you vote for Supreme Court Justices????
How do you explain a paid apparatchik for the communist ACLU has been a Justice for over a quarter century.
And another justice doesn't believe in free speech.
The Constitution is written in English...It need not be interpreted, and anyone can apply it.
The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
If the Supreme Court declares a law to be unconstitutional it can't be enforced. If it is the rule of law is history and we'll soon have another Hitler or Stalin.
None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.If a President ignores the SC ruling that a policy or law is Unconstitutional, he will go down in history as engaging in an unlawful act....eg a criminal. Made to order for an impeachment hearing, wouldn't you say?How about the persons we elect?
Say.....the President?
1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
So saith the Constitution.
2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling
Exactly as it should be!
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Ask the question!
Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.
So what???
You'll go down in history as a dunce....do you care?
BTW....for edification:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
Oh.....and now we can add Trump to the list.
And, maybe you should develop a backbone and consider why you are so quick to take orders.
I'm not.
When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch, he is taking too much power onto himself. Good reason to impeach him. We don't do dictators here.
It would be like the Congress passing another law making segregation legal.
None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.If a President ignores the SC ruling that a policy or law is Unconstitutional, he will go down in history as engaging in an unlawful act....eg a criminal. Made to order for an impeachment hearing, wouldn't you say?How about the persons we elect?
Say.....the President?
1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
So saith the Constitution.
2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling
Exactly as it should be!
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Ask the question!
Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.
So what???
You'll go down in history as a dunce....do you care?
BTW....for edification:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
Oh.....and now we can add Trump to the list.
And, maybe you should develop a backbone and consider why you are so quick to take orders.
I'm not.
When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch, he is taking too much power onto himself. Good reason to impeach him. We don't do dictators here.
It would be like the Congress passing another law making segregation legal.
Quoting Lenin again? Or is it Mugabe?The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
Quoting Lenin again? Or is it Mugabe?The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
Hey, they may have talked big but when I did a search on it, none of them actually did it.None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.If a President ignores the SC ruling that a policy or law is Unconstitutional, he will go down in history as engaging in an unlawful act....eg a criminal. Made to order for an impeachment hearing, wouldn't you say?How about the persons we elect?
Say.....the President?
1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
So saith the Constitution.
2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling
Exactly as it should be!
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Ask the question!
Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.
So what???
You'll go down in history as a dunce....do you care?
BTW....for edification:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
Oh.....and now we can add Trump to the list.
And, maybe you should develop a backbone and consider why you are so quick to take orders.
I'm not.
When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch, he is taking too much power onto himself. Good reason to impeach him. We don't do dictators here.
It would be like the Congress passing another law making segregation legal.
Gads, you're an imbecile......clean off those specs.
Those quotes are proof that strong Presidents recognize something you don't....
.....there is no mandate to follow Supreme Court Justice's blabbing.
Just as no one follows yours.
Hey, they may have talked big but when I did a search on it, none of them actually did it.None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.If a President ignores the SC ruling that a policy or law is Unconstitutional, he will go down in history as engaging in an unlawful act....eg a criminal. Made to order for an impeachment hearing, wouldn't you say?How about the persons we elect?
Say.....the President?
1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
So saith the Constitution.
2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling
Exactly as it should be!
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Ask the question!
Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.
So what???
You'll go down in history as a dunce....do you care?
BTW....for edification:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
Oh.....and now we can add Trump to the list.
And, maybe you should develop a backbone and consider why you are so quick to take orders.
I'm not.
When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch, he is taking too much power onto himself. Good reason to impeach him. We don't do dictators here.
It would be like the Congress passing another law making segregation legal.
Gads, you're an imbecile......clean off those specs.
Those quotes are proof that strong Presidents recognize something you don't....
.....there is no mandate to follow Supreme Court Justice's blabbing.
Just as no one follows yours.
Which president defied a decision of the Supreme Court?
President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!” Except, as best as historians can tell, Jackson made no such remark. And regardless of whether or not he said anything similar, no such defiance actually took place.Apr 24, 2018
did Jefferson ever defy a Supreme Court decision? - Google Search
If I was to call anyone Lenin it would be you since they're your sentiments. I'm sure Trump, Lenin, and Mugabe would be comfortable with those same sentiments. I would have said Hitler but he ignored the Reichstag not the courts, something I'm sure Trump would never do. Oops, too late thanks to AG Barr.Which one are you calling Lenin?Quoting Lenin again? Or is it Mugabe?The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
If I was to call anyone Lenin it would be you since they're your sentiments. I'm sure Trump, Lenin, and Mugabe would be comfortable with those same sentiments. I would have said Hitler but he ignored the Reichstag not the courts, something I'm sure Trump would never do. Oops, too late thanks to AG Barr.Which one are you calling Lenin?Quoting Lenin again? Or is it Mugabe?The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
How about the persons we elect?
Say.....the President?
1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
So saith the Constitution.
2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling
Exactly as it should be!
3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Ask the question!
Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.
I'll focus on what Trump is actually planning to do here. He loves being "historic" and this will certainly be that. Nancy Pelosi is shaking herself out of her stupor and smelling the blood at this point. He should not do this if he wants to keep his seat.Hey, they may have talked big but when I did a search on it, none of them actually did it.None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.If a President ignores the SC ruling that a policy or law is Unconstitutional, he will go down in history as engaging in an unlawful act....eg a criminal. Made to order for an impeachment hearing, wouldn't you say?
So what???
You'll go down in history as a dunce....do you care?
BTW....for edification:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
Oh.....and now we can add Trump to the list.
And, maybe you should develop a backbone and consider why you are so quick to take orders.
I'm not.
When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch, he is taking too much power onto himself. Good reason to impeach him. We don't do dictators here.
It would be like the Congress passing another law making segregation legal.
Gads, you're an imbecile......clean off those specs.
Those quotes are proof that strong Presidents recognize something you don't....
.....there is no mandate to follow Supreme Court Justice's blabbing.
Just as no one follows yours.
Which president defied a decision of the Supreme Court?
President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!” Except, as best as historians can tell, Jackson made no such remark. And regardless of whether or not he said anything similar, no such defiance actually took place.Apr 24, 2018
did Jefferson ever defy a Supreme Court decision? - Google Search
I really appreciate you actually doing research!
Point for that!
What you should focus on was my statement that the Constitution requires no bending of the knee and the neck to the Court's pronouncements.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
And Rehnquist's statement that no decision is judicious unless it is specifically related to the Constitution,
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some
authority to the federal government and have reserved authority
not granted it to the states or to the people individually.
[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
Rule #1If I was to call anyone Lenin it would be you since they're your sentiments. I'm sure Trump, Lenin, and Mugabe would be comfortable with those same sentiments. I would have said Hitler but he ignored the Reichstag not the courts, something I'm sure Trump would never do. Oops, too late thanks to AG Barr.Which one are you calling Lenin?Quoting Lenin again? Or is it Mugabe?The Court is a scam and a fraud.
Strong Presidents ignore it.
Calling you a liar would be gilding the lily.
Any reader recognizes you as such.
The Left/Liberals/Democrats.....you.....are clearly the Bolsheviks.
Just one example.
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
Rule #2 in effect.
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.
I'll focus on what Trump is actually planning to do here. He loves being "historic" and this will certainly be that. Nancy Pelosi is shaking herself out of her stupor and smelling the blood at this point. He should not do this if he wants to keep his seat.Hey, they may have talked big but when I did a search on it, none of them actually did it.None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.So what???
You'll go down in history as a dunce....do you care?
BTW....for edification:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
Oh.....and now we can add Trump to the list.
And, maybe you should develop a backbone and consider why you are so quick to take orders.
I'm not.
When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch, he is taking too much power onto himself. Good reason to impeach him. We don't do dictators here.
It would be like the Congress passing another law making segregation legal.
Gads, you're an imbecile......clean off those specs.
Those quotes are proof that strong Presidents recognize something you don't....
.....there is no mandate to follow Supreme Court Justice's blabbing.
Just as no one follows yours.
Which president defied a decision of the Supreme Court?
President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!” Except, as best as historians can tell, Jackson made no such remark. And regardless of whether or not he said anything similar, no such defiance actually took place.Apr 24, 2018
did Jefferson ever defy a Supreme Court decision? - Google Search
I really appreciate you actually doing research!
Point for that!
What you should focus on was my statement that the Constitution requires no bending of the knee and the neck to the Court's pronouncements.
4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
And Rehnquist's statement that no decision is judicious unless it is specifically related to the Constitution,
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some
authority to the federal government and have reserved authority
not granted it to the states or to the people individually.
[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
