Do you believe in the rule of law ...

[Quantum Windbag]

make.up.laws.

okie dokie

Do I have to spell this out for you? All laws are made up, which is why most of them are bad.

So, may I infer you would prefer to live in Somalia, where might makes right and everyone is armed with an automatic weapon, no taxes are collected and your water would need to be boiled.

Infer whatever you want. You are the one that thinks rule of law means the guy with the guns gets to make the laws.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do I have to spell this out for you? All laws are made up, which is why most of them are bad.

So, may I infer you would prefer to live in Somalia, where might makes right and everyone is armed with an automatic weapon, no taxes are collected and your water would need to be boiled.

Infer whatever you want. You are the one that thinks rule of law means the guy with the guns gets to make the laws.

You seem unable or too dishonest to acknowledge a difference between executive power (i.e. police power) and legislative authority.

 

[PredFan]

Admittedly, both sides of the isle are guilty of forgetting that this country is governed by the Rule of Law. How many times have we heard lefties screaming about how many people want strict gun control laws? They keep telling us that we're a minority.

 

[Plasmaball]

It is not the Rule of Law to have courts that make up laws, or overturn laws, that is an outgrowth of our government. The rule of law is the principle that laws are applied to everyone equally, even if they are police officers and the government wants to restrict magazines to holding only 7 bullets.

make.up.laws.

okie dokie

Do I have to spell this out for you? All laws are made up, which is why most of them are bad.

okie dokie....go start a thread about it.

 

[Plasmaball]

Admittedly, both sides of the isle are guilty of forgetting that this country is governed by the Rule of Law. How many times have we heard lefties screaming about how many people want strict gun control laws? They keep telling us that we're a minority.

when it comes to back ground checks you are. Deal with it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

or the law of the jungle?

The rule of law is a joke, since the law makers are not required to follow the laws.

And since they don't, we may end up with the law of the jungle.

unlikely, but possible none-the-less

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

The Constitution was never amended by the STATES (only the States can ratify) to delegate the power of Judicial Review to the federal courts.

The Supreme Court used "Judicial Review" to grant themselves the power of "Judicial Review."

That's a two-fold violation of First Maxim of Law:

"No Entity shall be a Judge of its own Case."

First they used an Entity (judicial review) to Justify (Judge) giving themselves (own cause) Judicial Review.

Then they made a ruling strongly is favor of the federal government lolololol.

Read Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny.

http://www.restore-government-accountability.com/judicial-tyranny.html

 

[daveman]

It’s not so much a ‘belief’ as it is a fact of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly.

I'm glad to see you oppose the IRS unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.

I'm glad to see you oppose the EPA unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.

I'm glad to see you oppose the DHS unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.

I'm glad to see you oppose the DoD unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.

I'm glad to see you oppose the NSA unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.

I'm glad to see you oppose the SEC unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.

I'm glad to see you oppose the OSHA unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.

I'm glad to see you oppose the FCC unjustly applying the law unequally to differing political groups/people.


Please link for us the posts wherein you condemn the Obama Administration's use of each of these Executive Branch agencies to target political enemies. Thanks.

 

[daveman]

Its a case that makes Abortion legal. Which means rule of law is that Abortion is now legal for citizens.

I know you are stupid, and like to show off how stupid you are, but seriously you are wrong....like usual.

You know just like there may not be separation of church in state in the constitution, but case law makes it basically so government can not promote one religion over another.

Wow. I wouldn't parade my ignorance while calling other people stupid if I were you.

rule of law
noun
the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.

Rule of law | Define Rule of law at Dictionary.com

So rule of law is a basic principle, not a specific case. The law is that abortion is a protected Constitutional right. But that is not "rule of law."

It must be tough going through life with only 2 functioning brain cells.

Yes and the law abortions are legal. Meaning it is illegal for you to ban them. Shrug...

It's not illegal to pass a law overturning another law.

Moron.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

or the law of the jungle?

some laws should be struck down some laws I will refuse to obey.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

The Constitution was never amended by the STATES (only the States can ratify) to delegate the power of Judicial Review to the federal courts.

The Supreme Court used "Judicial Review" to grant themselves the power of "Judicial Review."

That's a two-fold violation of First Maxim of Law:

"No Entity shall be a Judge of its own Case."

First they used an Entity (judicial review) to Justify (Judge) giving themselves (own cause) Judicial Review.

Then they made a ruling strongly is favor of the federal government lolololol.

Read Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny was Foreseen by Thomas Jefferson

Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803; we have had Judicial Review for 210 years. My question remains, do you (and others) want to toss aside 2+ Centuries of law? If you do, you would throw the nation into chaos and there would no longer be a United States of America. As polarized as we have become, chaos would be violent and the law of the jungle would replace the rule of law. The end result would leave this nation open to invasion and occupation by foreign powers.

BTW, I suggest you get a copy of Thomas Jefferson, The Art of Power by Jon Meacham. It's a good read and you'll learn that John Marshall was not only Chief Justice but Jefferson's cousin and they had less than a warm relationship. You'll also learn that Jefferson was apt at manipulation and his words were always measured with the practical as well as the ideological.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, may I infer you would prefer to live in Somalia, where might makes right and everyone is armed with an automatic weapon, no taxes are collected and your water would need to be boiled.

Infer whatever you want. You are the one that thinks rule of law means the guy with the guns gets to make the laws.

You seem unable or too dishonest to acknowledge a difference between executive power (i.e. police power) and legislative authority.

What did I say that lead you to that conclusion? Was it my comment that the rule of law means that the laws apply to everyone, even police? Maybe it was my support of the courts being able to overturn laws that they deem unconstitutional, even if I think they were wrong. Perhaps it is my insistence that the government should apply the rule of law even if what they are doing is not illegal.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

The Constitution was never amended by the STATES (only the States can ratify) to delegate the power of Judicial Review to the federal courts.

The Supreme Court used "Judicial Review" to grant themselves the power of "Judicial Review."

That's a two-fold violation of First Maxim of Law:

"No Entity shall be a Judge of its own Case."

First they used an Entity (judicial review) to Justify (Judge) giving themselves (own cause) Judicial Review.

Then they made a ruling strongly is favor of the federal government lolololol.

Read Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny was Foreseen by Thomas Jefferson

Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803; we have had Judicial Review for 210 years. My question remains, do you (and others) want to toss aside 2+ Centuries of law? If you do, you would throw the nation into chaos and there would no longer be a United States of America. As polarized as we have become, chaos would be violent and the law of the jungle would replace the rule of law. The end result would leave this nation open to invasion and occupation by foreign powers.

Yes, we've had judicial review for 210 years, that's been amending the Constitution without the Consent of the States for the same amount of time, and look where we are, with self-declared intellectuals incapable of understanding the term "shall not be infringed." That sir, is the Rule of Jungle, a jungle of self-declared corporate driven intellectuals.

Also, you're aware that the Jury has irreversible authority that even the Supreme Court cannot overrule, and we haven't descended into Chaos.

You also ignored the entire premise of my post:

The Supreme Court acted illegally and self declared itSELF the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution, under the justification that it was the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution ... a power never granted to it, which violates the First Maxim of Law and is a logical fallacy, known as "circular reasoning." The correct way to describe it is TYRANNY.

 

[Wry Catcher]

or the law of the jungle?

some laws should be struck down some laws I will refuse to obey.

That's fine. Society has buildings made just for people like you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Constitution was never amended by the STATES (only the States can ratify) to delegate the power of Judicial Review to the federal courts.

The Supreme Court used "Judicial Review" to grant themselves the power of "Judicial Review."

That's a two-fold violation of First Maxim of Law:

"No Entity shall be a Judge of its own Case."

First they used an Entity (judicial review) to Justify (Judge) giving themselves (own cause) Judicial Review.

Then they made a ruling strongly is favor of the federal government lolololol.

Read Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny was Foreseen by Thomas Jefferson

Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803; we have had Judicial Review for 210 years. My question remains, do you (and others) want to toss aside 2+ Centuries of law? If you do, you would throw the nation into chaos and there would no longer be a United States of America. As polarized as we have become, chaos would be violent and the law of the jungle would replace the rule of law. The end result would leave this nation open to invasion and occupation by foreign powers.

Yes, we've had judicial review for 210 years, that's been amending the Constitution without the Consent of the States for the same amount of time, and look where we are, with self-declared intellectuals incapable of understanding the term "shall not be infringed." That sir, is the Rule of Jungle, a jungle of self-declared corporate driven intellectuals.

Also, you're aware that the Jury has irreversible authority that even the Supreme Court cannot overrule, and we haven't descended into Chaos.

You also ignored the entire premise of my post:

The Supreme Court acted illegally and self declared itSELF the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution, under the justification that it was the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution ... a power never granted to it, which violates the First Maxim of Law and is a logical fallacy, known as "circular reasoning." The correct way to describe it is TYRANNY.

You're a sick little puppy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You're a sick little puppy.

Your logic is circular.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

or the law of the jungle?

some laws should be struck down some laws I will refuse to obey.

That's fine. Society has buildings made just for people like you.

Really? So if a law is created that atheist must die or submit too a chosen religion what would you do?
And the way things are going the bill of rights don't mean a thing but to you laws no matter what they are do.

 

[Plasmaball]

Wow. I wouldn't parade my ignorance while calling other people stupid if I were you.


Rule of law | Define Rule of law at Dictionary.com

So rule of law is a basic principle, not a specific case. The law is that abortion is a protected Constitutional right. But that is not "rule of law."

It must be tough going through life with only 2 functioning brain cells.

Yes and the law abortions are legal. Meaning it is illegal for you to ban them. Shrug...

It's not illegal to pass a law overturning another law.

Moron.

on the state level it is. The only people who can over turn Roe Vs wade is Scotus. A state like Montana can not overturn it on its own. Federal law trumps state law. So no you can't ban abortions.

Want to try again

 

[daveman]

Yes and the law abortions are legal. Meaning it is illegal for you to ban them. Shrug...

It's not illegal to pass a law overturning another law.

Moron.

on the state level it is. The only people who can over turn Roe Vs wade is Scotus. A state like Montana can not overturn it on its own. Federal law trumps state law. So no you can't ban abortions.

Want to try again

Way to backpedal!!

 

[Plasmaball]

It's not illegal to pass a law overturning another law.

Moron.

on the state level it is. The only people who can over turn Roe Vs wade is Scotus. A state like Montana can not overturn it on its own. Federal law trumps state law. So no you can't ban abortions.

Want to try again

Way to backpedal!!

but im not....keep trying