Then Or Now: How To Read The Constitution

[Gdjjr]

The Supreme Court, as I have written many times is no more than a cover for the political establishment.

There is no justification in the Constitution for the powers that they have assumed.

And, once again, they have let America down.

And, as I have written, many times, people who wear black dresses in public are just lawyers (albeit glorified) - lawyers pay others to teach them to lie, legally, with twist, spin, castigate and bastardizing simple English- they are falsely glorified and deemed omnipotent- similar to MD's, who get a degree, and even if the grades are low (C's and D's) they are still called Dr- citizens, improperly educated, including the previously mentioned, as well as their clients, don't know the difference, because they have been "instructed" not to.

You're absolutely correct in there is no justification for the powers they assume- but, IMproper education and glorifying each other with awards and esoteric crap has allowed them to feel they are above we the stinky tourist.

 

[Viktor]

1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

The concept of judicial review was established by precedent in Marbury vs Madison(1803).
It has never been challenged and so is part of American law.
You are way off base. The Constitution is not the only laws Americans have agreed to. They elect representatives to the House and Senate whose function is to make laws. If any of those laws are not approved by the people, they contact their representatives and tell them. If Congress does not obey the will of the people, they don't get reelected. If Americans don't like a ;law, they can challenge it in court, which means judicial review is necessary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

The concept of judicial review was established by precedent in Marbury vs Madison(1803).
It has never been challenged and so is part of American law.
You are way off base. The Constitution is not the only laws Americans have agreed to. They elect representatives to the House and Senate whose function is to make laws. If any of those laws are not approved by the people, they contact their representatives and tell them. If Congress does not obey the will of the people, they don't get reelected. If Americans don't like a ;law, they can challenge it in court, which means judicial review is necessary.

"The concept of judicial review ..."

Where is it in the Constitution?

 

[Viktor]

1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

The concept of judicial review was established by precedent in Marbury vs Madison(1803).
It has never been challenged and so is part of American law.
You are way off base. The Constitution is not the only laws Americans have agreed to. They elect representatives to the House and Senate whose function is to make laws. If any of those laws are not approved by the people, they contact their representatives and tell them. If Congress does not obey the will of the people, they don't get reelected. If Americans don't like a ;law, they can challenge it in court, which means judicial review is necessary.

"The concept of judicial review ..."

Where is it in the Constitution?

American law includes court decisions as well as written law, dimwit. I already told you where it came from. You are ignorant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

The concept of judicial review was established by precedent in Marbury vs Madison(1803).
It has never been challenged and so is part of American law.
You are way off base. The Constitution is not the only laws Americans have agreed to. They elect representatives to the House and Senate whose function is to make laws. If any of those laws are not approved by the people, they contact their representatives and tell them. If Congress does not obey the will of the people, they don't get reelected. If Americans don't like a ;law, they can challenge it in court, which means judicial review is necessary.

"The concept of judicial review ..."

Where is it in the Constitution?

American law includes court decisions as well as written law, dimwit. I already told you where it came from. You are ignorant.

The only law that counts is the Constitution. It is called 'the law of the land."

Many times the Supreme Court has reversed previous pronouncements.

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



The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions




Now.....how soon will you be changing your avi title to "ExposedAsAFool"?

Better hurry.