Why Jail for Kim Davis But Not for Sanctuary City Officials?

[Flash]

Moon Bats love the idea of illegals flooding into this country but hate the idea of freedom of religion.

That is the answer.

 

[Redfish]

Moon Bats love the idea of illegals flooding into this country but hate the idea of freedom of religion.

That is the answer.

yes, and the criminalization of Christianity is the real goal of the gay agenda.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.

And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?

Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.


Article V - Amending the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.

First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.

Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.

Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!

BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.

Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.

I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!

First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!

Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!

Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!

Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!

If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.

History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.

The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.

Who said judicial review included anything about interpretation beyond original intent? DO NOT EDIT MY WORDS TO MAKE THEM WHAT THEY WERE NOT! GOT IT!

Women's suffrage was NOT addressed in Amendment XIV. You're trying to tie two disparate things together. Only MEN were allowed to vote in 1868 at Amendment XIV adoption, and women, ALL women had to wait 52 years for the right of suffrage when Amendment XIX was ratified and became part of the Constitution. Two different issues under the law! MAN, you really have NO clue about the law and the Constitution, do you?

Don't even try to lecture me, from your point of ignorance and misunderstanding, about the Amendment process of Article V. And that would be "republican form", small r republican, which means we elect representatives as our proxy, and electors form the several States to serve as our proxies for the election of the President. There are NO DIRECT VOTES by the people for offices within the National government.

If you believe that the Executive, The Legislative and the Judicial Branches were created to prevent judicial review as you imply, you're dead wrong! Further, where have I ever claimed You wrote, "The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation...." You are in error AGAIN! Take a peek at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

"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." [Emphasis Added]

You will, no doubt, try to quibble about its meaning in your ignorance, but "all cases...arising under this Constitution" displays the intent of the Founders during the Convention, as recorded and touched upon in the Federalist Papers. There is the written authority IN THE CONSTITUTION for the Courts to perform judicial review as gone over by A. Hamilton in Federalist #78 as I recommended to you to read and understand, which you obviously didn't! SCOTUS never attempts to do any of the responsibility of the Executive or the Legislative Branches. They are concerned with adjudication only and from time to time the interpretation of the law. That is referred to as JUDICIAL REVIEW!

The ruling of the Constitutionality of the "separate but equal" doctrine sprang from SCOTUS in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upholding an 1890 Louisiana railroad statute and ruling separate but equal accommodations were NOT violative of Amendment XIV. In Brown v. Board of Education that doctrine of separate but equal was overturned, made moot, and found unconstitutional in the area of education ACROSS THE NATION because the "separate but equal" doctrine WAS VIOLATIVE of Amendment XIV and the long haul toward integration began. That ruling changed the Law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Another Landmark Case; Loving v. Virginia. Many States, 16 total at the time, had various anti-miscegenation statutes on the books. The Loving's could not be married in Virginia because she was black and he was white. They were tried in State Court, convicted and sentenced to one year in prison each. The Loving's appealed and their case worked its way to SCOTUS. The Supremes found that anti-miscegenation statutes were violative of Amendment XIV and overturned the decision. That ruling was overturned, made moot and found unconstitutional anti-miscegenation statutes. That ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Yet a third Landmark Case; Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Gideon was charged with a noncapital felony in Florida and at arraignment ask for the Court to appoint a lawyer to represent him because he was indigent. The Court denied his request because under Florida law, only the indigent charged with a capitol crime were entitled to have Court appointed representation. The case finally found its way to SCOTUS and found that SCOTUS, in a previous Maryland case, Betts v. Brady (1942) had erred and misinterpreted the due process clause of Amendment XIV. The High Court made moot the former case, which was almost identical, and reversed the rulings in all the lower Courts finding that ALL defendants were entitled to legal representation regardless of status. That ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

There are many, many more examples I could post, such as Printz v. United States (1997) where SCOTUS struck down Congress's attempt to use the Commerce Clause, Article I, sec 8, Cls3, to regulate the presence within some distance of a school. There are so very many to choose from, and yes, that ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Was the Law of the Land judicially reviewed as a result in the above cases? YUP!
Was the Law of the Land interpreted as a result in the above cases? YUP!
Was the Law of the Land changed as a result in the above cases? YUP!

In any case, you are entitled to believe what you want to even if you are totally in error, which, INDEED, you are! Until you shake those neoconservative, Tea Party mantras and actually read and understand at least a modicum of the available documentation on the topic of the law, judicial review, the Amendment process, ad nauseam, you'll never understand the truth.

If you respond to this, present a logical, accurate argument with representative and traceable facts and not emotional pleas wrapped in false assumptions and interpretations!

 

[bendog]

Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.


Article V - Amending the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.

First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.

Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.

Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!

BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.

Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.

I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!

First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!

Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!

Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!

Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!

If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.

History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.

The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.

Who said judicial review included anything about interpretation beyond original intent? DO NOT EDIT MY WORDS TO MAKE THEM WHAT THEY WERE NOT! GOT IT!

Women's suffrage was NOT addressed in Amendment XIV. You're trying to tie two disparate things together. Only MEN were allowed to vote in 1868 at Amendment XIV adoption, and women, ALL women had to wait 52 years for the right of suffrage when Amendment XIX was ratified and became part of the Constitution. Two different issues under the law! MAN, you really have NO clue about the law and the Constitution, do you?

Don't even try to lecture me, from your point of ignorance and misunderstanding, about the Amendment process of Article V. And that would be "republican form", small r republican, which means we elect representatives as our proxy, and electors form the several States to serve as our proxies for the election of the President. There are NO DIRECT VOTES by the people for offices within the National government.

If you believe that the Executive, The Legislative and the Judicial Branches were created to prevent judicial review as you imply, you're dead wrong! Further, where have I ever claimed You wrote, "The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation...." You are in error AGAIN! Take a peek at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

"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." [Emphasis Added]

You will, no doubt, try to quibble about its meaning in your ignorance, but "all cases...arising under this Constitution" displays the intent of the Founders during the Convention, as recorded and touched upon in the Federalist Papers. There is the written authority IN THE CONSTITUTION for the Courts to perform judicial review as gone over by A. Hamilton in Federalist #78 as I recommended to you to read and understand, which you obviously didn't! SCOTUS never attempts to do any of the responsibility of the Executive or the Legislative Branches. They are concerned with adjudication only and from time to time the interpretation of the law. That is referred to as JUDICIAL REVIEW!

The ruling of the Constitutionality of the "separate but equal" doctrine sprang from SCOTUS in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upholding an 1890 Louisiana railroad statute and ruling separate but equal accommodations were NOT violative of Amendment XIV. In Brown v. Board of Education that doctrine of separate but equal was overturned, made moot, and found unconstitutional in the area of education ACROSS THE NATION because the "separate but equal" doctrine WAS VIOLATIVE of Amendment XIV and the long haul toward integration began. That ruling changed the Law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Another Landmark Case; Loving v. Virginia. Many States, 16 total at the time, had various anti-miscegenation statutes on the books. The Loving's could not be married in Virginia because she was black and he was white. They were tried in State Court, convicted and sentenced to one year in prison each. The Loving's appealed and their case worked its way to SCOTUS. The Supremes found that anti-miscegenation statutes were violative of Amendment XIV and overturned the decision. That ruling was overturned, made moot and found unconstitutional anti-miscegenation statutes. That ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Yet a third Landmark Case; Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Gideon was charged with a noncapital felony in Florida and at arraignment ask for the Court to appoint a lawyer to represent him because he was indigent. The Court denied his request because under Florida law, only the indigent charged with a capitol crime were entitled to have Court appointed representation. The case finally found its way to SCOTUS and found that SCOTUS, in a previous Maryland case, Betts v. Brady (1942) had erred and misinterpreted the due process clause of Amendment XIV. The High Court made moot the former case, which was almost identical, and reversed the rulings in all the lower Courts finding that ALL defendants were entitled to legal representation regardless of status. That ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

There are many, many more examples I could post, such as Printz v. United States (1997) where SCOTUS struck down Congress's attempt to use the Commerce Clause, Article I, sec 8, Cls3, to regulate the presence within some distance of a school. There are so very many to choose from, and yes, that ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Was the Law of the Land judicially reviewed as a result in the above cases? YUP!
Was the Law of the Land interpreted as a result in the above cases? YUP!
Was the Law of the Land changed as a result in the above cases? YUP!

In any case, you are entitled to believe what you want to even if you are totally in error, which, INDEED, you are! Until you shake those neoconservative, Tea Party mantras and actually read and understand at least a modicum of the available documentation on the topic of the law, judicial review, the Amendment process, ad nauseam, you'll never understand the truth.

If you respond to this, present a logical, accurate argument with representative and traceable facts and not emotional pleas wrapped in false assumptions and interpretations!

You waste bandwidth on him.

But, imo there's a valid question of why the DOJ isn't coming down hard on sanctuary cities.

but on a lighter side, look at the map

Sanctuary Cities and States Protecting Illegal Aliens in the United States - Undocumented Workers

Where are the most illegal welcoming states? NEAR CANADA! These dirty stinking thieving Canadians have to be stopped. Build a Wall and build it today! and Hawaii. Think Obama "being from there" and not a Kenyan is just a hoax? HARDLY

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.

And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?

"a constitutional amendment is effectively a national referendum passed by the voters of 38 states.

The 9 unelected old farts on the SC (correction, 5 of them) have forced their views relative to same sex marriage on 330,000,000 americans. That same 5 out of 9 ratio have forced their views on the rest of us on several issues

You libs claim to support a representative republic form of government, but you then support a virtual dictatorship of 5 unelected people.

As to where our rights come from. Every right and priviledge that we enjoy in this country was put in place by majority vote, not minority dictate. We elect leaders by majority vote, enact laws by majority vote, establish minority rights by majority vote. No matter how you libs try to spin it, this country operates on the principle of majority rule.

If you want to live in a dictatorship, North Korea would be the ideal place for you.

Here we go again with you overloading you mouth with your ass! More ignorance on display! I'll cite and write...KAAAAY?

"a constitutional amendment is effectively a national referendum passed by the voters of 38 states. [ referendum - "a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision." States may have referendums within their jurisdictions, but NONE exist at the Federal level. The reason is to AVOID mob rule by the majority. The ONLY DIRECT VOTES at the Federal level an individual may have is that for someone seeking Congressional office as their REPRESENTATIVES in either the House or Senate! We have no direct vote on Amendments, fool! The electorates in EACH STATE give an up or down vote to tell our respective States how to vote on a proposed amendment. There is NO DIRECT VOTE BY THE PEOPLE TO THE FEDERAL! The Electoral College elects the President and the EC are the proxies of the People of the several States, NOT A DIRECT VOTE BY THE PEOPLE! ]

The 9 unelected old farts on the SC (correction, 5 of them) have forced their views relative to same sex marriage on 330,000,000 americans. That same 5 out of 9 ratio have forced their views on the rest of us on several issues [ So you're upset about "several issues". Cry me a fucking river, fish! If you don't like those few instances things didn't go your way you bloody sniveling sook, either do something lawfully to change it or pound fucking sand, Smack! ]

You libs claim to support a representative republic form of government, but you then support a virtual dictatorship of 5 unelected people. [ Get it right Pup! I'm an American and I only support out democratic republican form of governance. You interpretation of dictator seems to revolve around the carved potato up your arse. Get some help with that. ]

As to where our rights come from. Every right and priviledge that we enjoy in this country was put in place by majority vote, not minority dictate. We elect leaders by majority vote, enact laws by majority vote, establish minority rights by majority vote. No matter how you libs try to spin it, this country operates on the principle of majority rule. [ You are so pitifully wrong! Majority and minority rights are one and the same, IDIOT! Those rights were not voted upon, fool; those rights are inalienable and beyond man to bestow or deny. IF this Nation were under majority rule as you mistakenly assert, there would be no rights as we know them but mob rule as the norm, and individual rights could be given or dissolved at the whim of the herded majority of the moment, foolish know nothing! ]

If you want to live in a dictatorship, North Korea would be the ideal place for you" [Emphasis Added]
[ You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? ]

EDIT: . . . . I'm the one responding in the blue font, so you won't get confused again!

 

[Syriusly]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

• File suit against city for not following Federal law and
• Get judge to issue an injunction requiring the city to obey the judges order
• jail city official who refuses to obey.

Why haven't you filed suit yet against one of these cities?

 

[koshergrl]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

Silly, law breaking by progressives is good for us.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.

And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?

We have the national referendum every four years when we elect a President to whom we delegate, by that referendum, the power to appoint judges, who in their positions hold the constitutional power to interpret the law and decide the constitutionality of those laws.

The Electoral College elects the President, not the people directly. The several States determine, under their own Constitutions, how to select the electors from its State based on the vote within that State and allotted on their representation in the Congress. A National referendum would be a direct vote of the people at the Federal level by all States collectively. There are NO referendums at the Federal level. The Presidential election is often and mistakenly referred to as a referendum, but that is a misnomer used by the press generally.

 

[Seawytch]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

• File suit against city for not following Federal law and
• Get judge to issue an injunction requiring the city to obey the judges order
• jail city official who refuses to obey.

Why haven't you filed suit yet against one of these cities?

Probably because:

The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.

One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:

The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
​

Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law

 

[Redfish]

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.

And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?

"a constitutional amendment is effectively a national referendum passed by the voters of 38 states.

The 9 unelected old farts on the SC (correction, 5 of them) have forced their views relative to same sex marriage on 330,000,000 americans. That same 5 out of 9 ratio have forced their views on the rest of us on several issues

You libs claim to support a representative republic form of government, but you then support a virtual dictatorship of 5 unelected people.

As to where our rights come from. Every right and priviledge that we enjoy in this country was put in place by majority vote, not minority dictate. We elect leaders by majority vote, enact laws by majority vote, establish minority rights by majority vote. No matter how you libs try to spin it, this country operates on the principle of majority rule.

If you want to live in a dictatorship, North Korea would be the ideal place for you.

Here we go again with you overloading you mouth with your ass! More ignorance on display! I'll cite and write...KAAAAY?

"a constitutional amendment is effectively a national referendum passed by the voters of 38 states. [ referendum - "a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision." States may have referendums within their jurisdictions, but NONE exist at the Federal level. The reason is to AVOID mob rule by the majority. The ONLY DIRECT VOTES at the Federal level an individual may have is that for someone seeking Congressional office as their REPRESENTATIVES in either the House or Senate! We have no direct vote on Amendments, fool! The electorates in EACH STATE give an up or down vote to tell our respective States how to vote on a proposed amendment. There is NO DIRECT VOTE BY THE PEOPLE TO THE FEDERAL! The Electoral College elects the President and the EC are the proxies of the People of the several States, NOT A DIRECT VOTE BY THE PEOPLE! ]

The 9 unelected old farts on the SC (correction, 5 of them) have forced their views relative to same sex marriage on 330,000,000 americans. That same 5 out of 9 ratio have forced their views on the rest of us on several issues [ So you're upset about "several issues". Cry me a fucking river, fish! If you don't like those few instances things didn't go your way you bloody sniveling sook, either do something lawfully to change it or pound fucking sand, Smack! ]

You libs claim to support a representative republic form of government, but you then support a virtual dictatorship of 5 unelected people. [ Get it right Pup! I'm an American and I only support out democratic republican form of governance. You interpretation of dictator seems to revolve around the carved potato up your arse. Get some help with that. ]

As to where our rights come from. Every right and priviledge that we enjoy in this country was put in place by majority vote, not minority dictate. We elect leaders by majority vote, enact laws by majority vote, establish minority rights by majority vote. No matter how you libs try to spin it, this country operates on the principle of majority rule. [ You are so pitifully wrong! Majority and minority rights are one and the same, IDIOT! Those rights were not voted upon, fool; those rights are inalienable and beyond man to bestow or deny. IF this Nation were under majority rule as you mistakenly assert, there would be no rights as we know them but mob rule as the norm, and individual rights could be given or dissolved at the whim of the herded majority of the moment, foolish know nothing! ]

If you want to live in a dictatorship, North Korea would be the ideal place for you" [Emphasis Added]
[ You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? ]

EDIT: . . . . I'm the one responding in the blue font, so you won't get confused again!

nice effort, and the blue font is really cute.

But you are mistaken of every issue.

on constitutional amendments I used the word "effectively" not "actually" you lose

on 5 SC judges making cultural decisions for 330,000,000 americans, I'll give you a tie because we both said the same thing in different words. Although I did it without the juvenile insults

on representative government, how is it representative when the president and the SC dictate what the masses must believe? you lose.

On how rights are established, majority votes ratified the constitution and its amendments, all statutes are put in place by majority votes in congress or state legislatures, our leaders are elected my majority vote. There would be no minority rights but for majority votes, and yes, those rights apply to both the majority and the minorities, or at least they used to, another loss for you.

North Korea is a dictatorship, and my "knives" are very sharp. you lose that one too.

See, thats how it works and there is no need for asinine insults. But I understand, when you are wrong, resorting to insults is a tactic to cover your ass.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.


Article V - Amending the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.

First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.

Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.

Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!

BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.

Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.

I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!

First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!

Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!

Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!

Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!

If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.

History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.

The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.

Who said judicial review included anything about interpretation beyond original intent? DO NOT EDIT MY WORDS TO MAKE THEM WHAT THEY WERE NOT! GOT IT!

Women's suffrage was NOT addressed in Amendment XIV. You're trying to tie two disparate things together. Only MEN were allowed to vote in 1868 at Amendment XIV adoption, and women, ALL women had to wait 52 years for the right of suffrage when Amendment XIX was ratified and became part of the Constitution. Two different issues under the law! MAN, you really have NO clue about the law and the Constitution, do you?

Don't even try to lecture me, from your point of ignorance and misunderstanding, about the Amendment process of Article V. And that would be "republican form", small r republican, which means we elect representatives as our proxy, and electors form the several States to serve as our proxies for the election of the President. There are NO DIRECT VOTES by the people for offices within the National government.

If you believe that the Executive, The Legislative and the Judicial Branches were created to prevent judicial review as you imply, you're dead wrong! Further, where have I ever claimed You wrote, "The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation...." You are in error AGAIN! Take a peek at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

"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." [Emphasis Added]

You will, no doubt, try to quibble about its meaning in your ignorance, but "all cases...arising under this Constitution" displays the intent of the Founders during the Convention, as recorded and touched upon in the Federalist Papers. There is the written authority IN THE CONSTITUTION for the Courts to perform judicial review as gone over by A. Hamilton in Federalist #78 as I recommended to you to read and understand, which you obviously didn't! SCOTUS never attempts to do any of the responsibility of the Executive or the Legislative Branches. They are concerned with adjudication only and from time to time the interpretation of the law. That is referred to as JUDICIAL REVIEW!

The ruling of the Constitutionality of the "separate but equal" doctrine sprang from SCOTUS in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upholding an 1890 Louisiana railroad statute and ruling separate but equal accommodations were NOT violative of Amendment XIV. In Brown v. Board of Education that doctrine of separate but equal was overturned, made moot, and found unconstitutional in the area of education ACROSS THE NATION because the "separate but equal" doctrine WAS VIOLATIVE of Amendment XIV and the long haul toward integration began. That ruling changed the Law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Another Landmark Case; Loving v. Virginia. Many States, 16 total at the time, had various anti-miscegenation statutes on the books. The Loving's could not be married in Virginia because she was black and he was white. They were tried in State Court, convicted and sentenced to one year in prison each. The Loving's appealed and their case worked its way to SCOTUS. The Supremes found that anti-miscegenation statutes were violative of Amendment XIV and overturned the decision. That ruling was overturned, made moot and found unconstitutional anti-miscegenation statutes. That ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Yet a third Landmark Case; Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Gideon was charged with a noncapital felony in Florida and at arraignment ask for the Court to appoint a lawyer to represent him because he was indigent. The Court denied his request because under Florida law, only the indigent charged with a capitol crime were entitled to have Court appointed representation. The case finally found its way to SCOTUS and found that SCOTUS, in a previous Maryland case, Betts v. Brady (1942) had erred and misinterpreted the due process clause of Amendment XIV. The High Court made moot the former case, which was almost identical, and reversed the rulings in all the lower Courts finding that ALL defendants were entitled to legal representation regardless of status. That ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

There are many, many more examples I could post, such as Printz v. United States (1997) where SCOTUS struck down Congress's attempt to use the Commerce Clause, Article I, sec 8, Cls3, to regulate the presence within some distance of a school. There are so very many to choose from, and yes, that ruling changed the law of the Land through JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Was the Law of the Land judicially reviewed as a result in the above cases? YUP!
Was the Law of the Land interpreted as a result in the above cases? YUP!
Was the Law of the Land changed as a result in the above cases? YUP!

In any case, you are entitled to believe what you want to even if you are totally in error, which, INDEED, you are! Until you shake those neoconservative, Tea Party mantras and actually read and understand at least a modicum of the available documentation on the topic of the law, judicial review, the Amendment process, ad nauseam, you'll never understand the truth.

If you respond to this, present a logical, accurate argument with representative and traceable facts and not emotional pleas wrapped in false assumptions and interpretations!

I seriously doubt you know what the founders original intent of the Constitution was, clearly they believed in a clear separation of the branches of government. However, I don't need to add any opinion beyond what our Founders and early our government publicly stated and believed.


“It is agreed on all sides, the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others.

The Federalist No. 48
'These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other'
New York Packet
Friday, February 1, 1788
[James Madison]


To W. H. Torrance -
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”
Thomas Jefferson 1815
The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, page 478


Kamper v. Hawkins, 3 Va. (1 Va. cases) 20, (1793)
Justice Henry said, “The judiciary, from the nature of the office, and the mode of their appointment, could never be designed to determine upon the equity, necessity, or usefulness of a law; that would amount to an express interfering with the legislative branch, in the clause where it is expressly forbidden for any one branch to interfere with the duties of the other. The reason is obvious, not being chosen immediately by the people, nor being accountable to them, in the first instance, they do not, and ought not, to represent the people in framing or repealing any law.”


Justice Iredell, in another 1793 case, Chisolm v. Georgia, stated , “I have no hesitation to say, that any act to that effect [exceeding legislative authority] would be utterly void, because it would be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is a fundamental law paramount to all others which we are note only bound to consult, but sworn to observe; and therefore, where there is an interference, being superior in obligation to the other, we must unquestionably obey that in preference...There is no part of the Constitution that I know of, that authorizes this Court to take up any business where they [the legislature] left it and, in order that the powers given in the Constitution may be in full activity, supply their omission by making new laws for new cases; or, which I take to be the same thing, applying old principles to new cases materially different from those to which they were applied before.”


"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." --Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW
Justice Samuel Chase spoke very clearly on the matter of “original intent” which he believed should be the only legitimate basis for interpreting the law. In a nutshell, he argued in Calder v. Bull (1798) that, “The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it......This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823:
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."



THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE being the ultimate power over their respective government branches.

Judge Spencer Roan, who later became the chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, wrote in 1793, “I consider the people of this country as the only sovereign power. I consider the legislature as not sovereign but subordinate; they are subordinate to the great constitutional charter, which the people have established as a fundamental law, and which alone has given existence and authority to the legislature....” Kamper v. Hawkins 1793

From the statements and quotes clearly spoken above, our United States Supreme Court was never given the authority to interpret law beyond the scope to which it was written, "in the recollected spirit of the debates to which it was initially formulated and drafted". If you researched our nation's history, you would have then seen the women's movement was unsuccessful and couldn't possibly be use ithe 14th amendment "in context" as a means to establish equality (like we have seen later being stretched by the courts to include other issues
like gay marriage). As a result women used the amendment process that the Constitution does allow, to establish the equality they fought for and desired to see. That was placed there by our Founders for a specific purpose, to allow changes in our Constitution as times would require. The Supreme Court has no legislative power to change the law, the legislative branch is the only one with the power to enact law and new legislation.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I seriously doubt you know what the founders original intent of the Constitution was, clearly they believed in a clear separation of the branches of government. However, I don't need to add any opinion beyond what our Founders and early our government publicly stated and believed.

Your first statement is simply unbelievable! You need to direct it toward yourself. For instance you cite Federalist #48 which Madison clearly titled and which you copied;
"These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other"

You appear to have been and still are arguing that there should be absolute separation between the three Branches which would render Judicial Review, effectively, unconstitutional! But read what that title above says which you base your most recent argument upon. Its about the DEGREE of separation between the three branches..."NOT SO FAR SEPARATED AS TO HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OVER EACH OTHER". Have you not heard of the implicit checks and balances crafted into the Great Contract? Now doesn't that possibly, maybe, perhaps mean that the three branches DO, INDEED, have some degree of control over each other, like maybe what is notably termed "Checks and Balances"! You assertion of a "clear separation" is astoundingly absurd!

I provided for you a reference to Federalist #78 where Hamilton discussed the Founders intent of the Judiciary. I'm certain you failed to follow that advice. If you had followed and read it, you would have encountered the following:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference." [Emphasis Added]

The three paragraphs above from Federalist #78, set out by Alexander Hamilton as the intent of the Framers of the Constitution as they wrote that Social Contract is all one really needs to follow and understand that INTENT! If you're unable to understand 18th Century English, then God Bless You! Your citations above are all irrelevant to the topic of Judicial Review, which you find repugnant. But compare what Hamilton wrote in that first paragraph above and put some time thinking about a Congress and an Executive which could not be held in check by SCOTUS and could enact their WILL rather than the WILL of the people!

From the statements and quotes clearly spoken above, our United States Supreme Court was never given the authority to interpret law beyond the scope to which it was written, "in the recollected spirit of the debates to which it was initially formulated and drafted". If you researched our nation's history, you would have then seen the women's movement was unsuccessful and couldn't possibly be use ithe 14th amendment "in context" as a means to establish equality (like we have seen later being stretched by the courts to include other issues
like gay marriage). As a result women used the amendment process that the Constitution does allow, to establish the equality they fought for and desired to see. That was placed there by our Founders for a specific purpose, to allow changes in our Constitution as times would require. The Supreme Court has no legislative power to change the law, the legislative branch is the only one with the power to enact law and new legislation.

There you go trying to conflate women's suffrage with black male suffrage granted in Amendment XIV, yet again. You introduced that crap, bud! Now you're trying to paint me as somehow attempting to tie them together. Damn, you just can't keep things straight! That's beside the point that the entire question is irrelevant!!!!

Your final line had the lie put to in ~212 years ago in Marbury v. Madison. You obviously didn't read it over either, did you! Give it up lad because you obviously don't know Shit from Shinola.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I seriously doubt you know what the founders original intent of the Constitution was, clearly they believed in a clear separation of the branches of government. However, I don't need to add any opinion beyond what our Founders and early our government publicly stated and believed.

Your first statement is simply unbelievable! You need to direct it toward yourself. For instance you cite Federalist #48 which Madison clearly titled and which you copied;
"These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other"

You appear to have been and still are arguing that there should be absolute separation between the three Branches which would render Judicial Review, effectively, unconstitutional! But read what that title above says which you base your most recent argument upon. Its about the DEGREE of separation between the three branches..."NOT SO FAR SEPARATED AS TO HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OVER EACH OTHER". Have you not heard of the implicit checks and balances crafted into the Great Contract? Now doesn't that possibly, maybe, perhaps mean that the three branches DO, INDEED, have some degree of control over each other, like maybe what is notably termed "Checks and Balances"! You assertion of a "clear separation" is astoundingly absurd!

I provided for you a reference to Federalist #78 where Hamilton discussed the Founders intent of the Judiciary. I'm certain you failed to follow that advice. If you had followed and read it, you would have encountered the following:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference." [Emphasis Added]

The three paragraphs above from Federalist #78, set out by Alexander Hamilton as the intent of the Framers of the Constitution as they wrote that Social Contract is all one really needs to follow and understand that INTENT! If you're unable to understand 18th Century English, then God Bless You! Your citations above are all irrelevant to the topic of Judicial Review, which you find repugnant. But compare what Hamilton wrote in that first paragraph above and put some time thinking about a Congress and an Executive which could not be held in check by SCOTUS and could enact their WILL rather than the WILL of the people!

From the statements and quotes clearly spoken above, our United States Supreme Court was never given the authority to interpret law beyond the scope to which it was written, "in the recollected spirit of the debates to which it was initially formulated and drafted". If you researched our nation's history, you would have then seen the women's movement was unsuccessful and couldn't possibly be use ithe 14th amendment "in context" as a means to establish equality (like we have seen later being stretched by the courts to include other issues
like gay marriage). As a result women used the amendment process that the Constitution does allow, to establish the equality they fought for and desired to see. That was placed there by our Founders for a specific purpose, to allow changes in our Constitution as times would require. The Supreme Court has no legislative power to change the law, the legislative branch is the only one with the power to enact law and new legislation.

There you go trying to conflate women's suffrage with black male suffrage granted in Amendment XIV, yet again. You introduced that crap, bud! Now you're trying to paint me as somehow attempting to tie them together. Damn, you just can't keep things straight! That's beside the point that the entire question is irrelevant!!!!

Your final line had the lie put to in ~212 years ago in Marbury v. Madison. You obviously didn't read it over either, did you! Give it up lad because you obviously don't know Shit from Shinola.

I don't know what interpretation you've read in what I just posted, but it was pretty clear that the Supreme Court was never given any authority to interpret a law and enact "new legislation". Pay particular attention to what's highlighted in red below, from what I had researched on the subject, it's not just an "opinion" that I formulated ... it's what the founders had spoken and the courts concluded from what THEY said. Their view portrayed a judicial branch that was only given power to interpret law from its "original intent" within the confinds and spirit of the original debate. Jefferson himself also spoke of a judicial branch that would not carry any greater authority over that of the legislative or executive. Here again is his words in his written letter.

To W. H. Torrance -
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”
Thomas Jefferson 1815
The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, page 478


Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823:
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted,recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended AGAINST it, conform to the probable one in which it waspassed."

Look particularly at the "DATE" of when this opinion was rendered. They would be more familiar to what the Founders had intended.

Justice Iredell, in another 1793 case, Chisolm v. Georgia, stated , “I have no hesitation to say, that any act to that effect [exceeding legislative authority] would be utterly void, because it would be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is afundamental law paramount to all others which we are note only bound to consult, but sworn to observe; and therefore, where there is an interference, being superior in obligation to the other, we must unquestionably obey that in preference...There is no part of the Constitution that I know of, that authorizes this Court to take up any business where they [the legislature] left It and, in order that the powers given in the Constiturion may be in full activity, supply their mission by making new laws for new cases; or, which I take to be the same thing, applying oldprinciples to new cases materially different from those to which they were applied before.”

it doesn't get any clearer than that. I have provided a lot more documented sources on the subject that all draw the same conclusions. Perhaps you are simply not used to having your views contested with someone who backs them up with quotes and facts over mere opinion. I'd suggest doing some research on the subject first and then in your next response

.... provide for me a actual quote where one of our Constitutional Founders has very specifically stated that the United States Supreme Court was established with the authority to single handedly rewrite legislation into law. Otherwise, I can only conclude here that you're making an argument just for the sake of arguing.

 

[CowboyTed]

False equivalency, Mike.

Rosa Davis wrongfully was denied equal access to public transportation.

Kim Davis wrongfully was denying equal access to county clerk services.

actually no. she just had to sit in the back of the bus...she was still allowed to ride.....

actually as usual you are wrong. She had to sit in a particular section of the bus and was denied to sit up front and had to give up her sit, although she paid the same prices. The far right is relentlessly stupid.

that was wrong and has been corrected. This woman had the right to refuse service to gays knowing that she was violating the law. The muslim flight attendent refused to serve alcohol even though that was part of her job. Why is one form of religious protest ok and the other not?

Who is defending the muslim flight attendent?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Redfish]

False equivalency, Mike.

Rosa Davis wrongfully was denied equal access to public transportation.

Kim Davis wrongfully was denying equal access to county clerk services.

actually no. she just had to sit in the back of the bus...she was still allowed to ride.....

actually as usual you are wrong. She had to sit in a particular section of the bus and was denied to sit up front and had to give up her sit, although she paid the same prices. The far right is relentlessly stupid.

that was wrong and has been corrected. This woman had the right to refuse service to gays knowing that she was violating the law. The muslim flight attendent refused to serve alcohol even though that was part of her job. Why is one form of religious protest ok and the other not?

Who is defending the muslim flight attendent?

obama and most of the media

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Christian Right and Gay Marriage Derangement Syndrome Its activists refuse to adapt to the new world in which they live. By Ste

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I don't know what interpretation you've read in what I just posted, but it was pretty clear that the Supreme Court was never given any authority to interpret a law and enact "new legislation". Pay particular attention to what's highlighted in red below, from what I had researched on the subject, it's not just an "opinion" that I formulated ... it's what the founders had spoken and the courts concluded from what THEY said. Their view portrayed a judicial branch that was only given power to interpret law from its "original intent" within the confinds and spirit of the original debate. Jefferson himself also spoke of a judicial branch that would not carry any greater authority over that of the legislative or executive. Here again is his words in his written letter.

In your first line you assert, "...Supreme Court was never given any authority to interpret a law and enact "new legislation". [Emphasis Added]

Alexander Hamilton was present in Constitution Hall in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 along with Jay and Madison, and those three wrote the Federalist Papers. They KNEW what the Founders intent was because they took part in the debates and the great Contract's formation from May to Sept. of that year. So what Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78 comes DIRECTLY from one of the Founders! Or would you also attempt to split another hair to dispute it or declare they should not be included in the role as Founders and Framers of our Constitution?

To debunk your assertion I quoted above takes just a single line from Federalist #78, which is, "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

Let's put them together for easier comparison:

Your assertion; "...Supreme Court was never given any authority to interpret a law and enact "new legislation".

Hamilton's expertise; "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

Are you going to claim one of the Founders was wrong and you are right? It should be obvious to any reasonable person that you are in error! If it isn't obvious to you then you have cognitive issues with the English language!

Regarding your Jefferson quotes, he was not at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and never heard the discussions, never served on any committee and never took part in any debates during the Convention! Jefferson was in France the entire time and took no part in the construction of the Federalist Papers. Both of your Jefferson cites were dated long AFTER Marbury v. Madison (1803) in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

Regarding the 1793 SCOTUS decision, that was made moot by Marbury v. Madison and it has had no authority for ~212 years!

it doesn't get any clearer than that. I have provided a lot more documented sources on the subject that all draw the same conclusions. Perhaps you are simply not used to having your views contested with someone who backs them up with quotes and facts over mere opinion. I'd suggest doing some research on the subject first and then in your next response

Your "documentation" has either been made moot by SCOTUS or is nothing more than supposition and opinion, not law as exists today! You points have been refuted and debunked. For you to now include an ad hominem fallacy at the close is really an indication of where you are headed!!!!

.... provide for me a actual quote where one of our Constitutional Founders has very specifically stated that the United States Supreme Court was established with the authority to single handedly rewrite legislation into law. Otherwise, I can only conclude here that you're making an argument just for the sake of arguing.

OK! It was provided before, it's also provided above, but here it is again from Hamilton in Federalist #78;

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts." [Emphasis Added]

Here it is in the full paragraph for the full context (for at least the third time);

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]

If one reads and understands the above, one will see that one's assertions and pleadings to the effect that SCOTUS has no power of Judicial Review are IN ERROR! Q.E.D.

Have a nice Day!