- Oct 26, 2011
- 16,674
- 1,328
- 85
Huh.........we live in a constitutional republic where society legislates its mores' through a republican representation instead of residing in a social democracy such as those throughout history who failed because of violent revolution based upon a mob mentality?
Never read from No. 10 of the federalist papers? The companion documents that accompanied the US Constitution and Bill of Rights during the ratification process by the states?
Real Slow, like one talks to a 5 year old. Show us in the Constitution where the Federal Government has the authority to personally "INTERPRET" the Constitution. Where does this authority come from? Its SELF PROFESSED by a group of non-elected civil servants with life time appointments. We do not live in an Oligarchical state any more than we live in a social democracy. There is no authorization for part of the Federal Government to self interpret and change the US constitution via OPINION......that is an act of legislation. No court holds that authority. If it exists show us in the Constitution. The judicial branch is indeed a part of the federal government.
What you will attempt to do is present OPINIONATED PRECEDENCE where these radicalized judges profess to have authority where no authorization in the Constitution exists. The Constitution is nothing but a contract among the states placing limits upon the central government.........not the people/states. Read Article 10 of the Bill of Rights. That which does not exist (literally) in the Constitution belongs expressly to the States/People.
Since when is it legal and not unethical for one party or the other that have a binding contract to change the wording of said contract after it is validated and final void of any representation by the other party? Its neither legal nor ethical
Claiming the feds can self interpret the Constitution is not logical or reasonable. Why do all the states have constitutions of their own? To use as outhouse paper for the feds? The courts were established to "Arbitrate Law": This is accomplished by using a source of calibration as a constant standard.......the US Constitution. You can't change the wording in order to make it fit opinion.........it no language exists, then its state property......not federal property not court property. Article 10.
Civil war amendments? Please explain how any amendment to the constitution rescinds any of the articles found in the States Bill of Rights? In order for one word of the constitution to be rescinded it would have to come in the form of a super majority amendment..........not by the sound of a judges gavel. Courts have the power to arbitrate existing law through comparing any potential or existing state law or federal law with the actual content of the US Constitution........no court has the right to change or add language to the US Constitution void of that legal process known as an amendment.
Show us in these (wink, wink) civil war amendments where there exists language that rescinds Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. One amendment cannot rescind another without specific language addressing those changes.....such as existed with the 18th and 21st amendments. No where does the language exist that states, "Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution" is herby REPEALED.
Now waste your time.........surf the next and come back with PRECEDENTS instead of pointing out the language in the Constitution. Why will you do this.....because no such language exists. Article Four, Section Four, Clause 1 is just as legal today as it was when it was ratified.
too bad for you, they are not who wrote the document, u s constitution and those that did - did not read your "companion documents" and ignored them as much as they could ...
no state shall -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
maybe you should read section 1 amendment XIV ... because the rest of your post is purely self administered loony tune pre civil war rhetoric the civil war amendments put an end to, once and for all. than for notwithstanding today's rightwing delusional, fanatic daydreamers - clyde 154.
