ShootSpeeders
Gold Member
- May 13, 2012
- 20,232
- 2,373
- 280
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #601
But it doesn't PROVIDE for the general welfare. Only 3% of the country gets any good out of it.
Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?
- Thread starter ShootSpeeders
- Start date
But it doesn't PROVIDE for the general welfare. Only 3% of the country gets any good out of it.
ShootSpeeders
Gold Member
- May 13, 2012
- 20,232
- 2,373
- 280
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #602
Can't 'you read??? The phrase "general welfare" is mentioned in both the preamble and as one of the enumerated powers.!!! How many times must we explain this to you?
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
How entirely stupid must you be? I was right. You remain wrong.
The PREAMBLE does not list enumerated powers.
The one section that DOES list an enumerated power where the phrase "general Welfare" is also used does NOT list the general Welfare as one ofthe enumerated powers?
Your brain really is either missing of fried beyond hope of repair.
Nobody said the phrase wasn't used, you fucking moron. The POINT remains that it is NOT an enumerated power.
The power to lay taxes IS an enumerated power. Providing for the general Welfare is NOT.
You are stupid and or dishonest and a piece of worthless shit.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #604
Conservativedude cites himself as self-evidence proof of his own assertion. 
The fact is that the Federalist Papers explain far better than he what the Judicial Power is in the Constitution.
Emily does not like but must accept that our Congress passes laws, the President signs the, and SCOTUS opines on them. Her 'right to consent' is assigned to her representative and senators in Congress. That is how republican governments work. If she wishes, she can lobby her representative and senators for changes, but she has no power to set aside law.
Yes, the husband of Mrs Schiavo was her lawful advocate when she became incompetent and vegetative. No, Emily has no legal or moral right to refer to him as an "ex-husband."
The fact is that the Federalist Papers explain far better than he what the Judicial Power is in the Constitution.Emily does not like but must accept that our Congress passes laws, the President signs the, and SCOTUS opines on them. Her 'right to consent' is assigned to her representative and senators in Congress. That is how republican governments work. If she wishes, she can lobby her representative and senators for changes, but she has no power to set aside law.
Yes, the husband of Mrs Schiavo was her lawful advocate when she became incompetent and vegetative. No, Emily has no legal or moral right to refer to him as an "ex-husband."
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #605
I needed a laugh this afternoon,
Shootspeeders and Liability provided in Keystone mode.
Shootspeeders and Liability provided in Keystone mode.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,396
- 3,635
You're fucking deranged.
The very first item in that list begins the list of enumerated powers...
... starting with the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
And again, it bears repeating because you are so brain-dead .... if you claim that is not an enumerated power and that Congress has no powers beyond the enumerated powers following that first one, then it's unconstitutional for Congress to fund the Air Force since the Air Force is not specifically enumerated.
Do you see now how fucking retarded you have to be to assert such a ridiculous position?
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Writing new laws? Seriously? Can you provide some examples?
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Congress does stinky butt because they can pass constitutional amendments-if ratified by the states- to overturn rulings by the court that deemed a law unconstitutional. They can also re-write laws that the SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional in a way that complies with, or gets around the aspect of the law that the court objected to. Next question.
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
You're fucking deranged.
The very first item in that list begins the list of enumerated powers...
... starting with the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
And again, it bears repeating because you are so brain-dead .... if you claim that is not an enumerated power and that Congress has no powers beyond the enumerated powers following that first one, then it's unconstitutional for Congress to fund the Air Force since the Air Force is not specifically enumerated.
Do you see now how fucking retarded you have to be to assert such a ridiculous position?
No Fauny. YOU are the one who cant wrap you diminutive little "mind" around a not exactly subtle difference between an enumerated power and one of the list of objective for which the enumerated power is given.
Congress DOES have an enumerated power to lay taxes. That power granted to Congress is to enable the Government to address some pretty lofty goals. For example, the power to lay taxes has AS ONE of its purposes, "to pay the Debts . . ."
I realize that this sails over your petty little mind but --
the subject itself it isn't hard at all. YOU are merely uncommonly dull witted.
The enumerate power here is "to lay and collect taxes TO PROVIDE FOR ... [a litany of purposes is then spelled out]." That should be more than enough clue even for a simpleton like you. The POWER EXISTS for a number of purposes. Those purposes are then set forth. The purposes are not themselves enumerated powers, you dolt.
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
"Taxing and Spending Clause
While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power."
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even Wiki gets it. A moron like Fauny never will.
While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power."
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even Wiki gets it. A moron like Fauny never will.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,396
- 3,635
... that enumerated power is to provide for the general welfare of the nation. You don't have to understand it... But it is what it is.You're fucking deranged.
The very first item in that list begins the list of enumerated powers...
... starting with the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
And again, it bears repeating because you are so brain-dead .... if you claim that is not an enumerated power and that Congress has no powers beyond the enumerated powers following that first one, then it's unconstitutional for Congress to fund the Air Force since the Air Force is not specifically enumerated.
Do you see now how fucking retarded you have to be to assert such a ridiculous position?
No Fauny. YOU are the one who cant wrap you diminutive little "mind" around a not exactly subtle difference between an enumerated power and one of the list of objective for which the enumerated power is given.
Congress DOES have an enumerated power to lay taxes. That power granted to Congress is to enable the Government to address some pretty lofty goals. For example, the power to lay taxes has AS ONE of its purposes, "to pay the Debts . . ."
I realize that this sails over your petty little mind but --
the subject itself it isn't hard at all. YOU are merely uncommonly dull witted.
The enumerate power here is "to lay and collect taxes TO PROVIDE FOR ... [a litany of purposes is then spelled out]." That should be more than enough clue even for a simpleton like you. The POWER EXISTS for a number of purposes. Those purposes are then set forth. The purposes are not themselves enumerated powers, you dolt.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Why,? Because you say so? Before you continue to blather about that which you know little, you might want to try to digest this:The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.
The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.
charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702
Selected Excerpts
The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas did not just invalidate laws against sodomy, it may have put an end to all legislation of sexual activity between consenting adults and opened the door to the end of traditional marriage.
This case was not just about the whether the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy between members of the same sex was constitutional. Though he probably could have successfully convinced the Court that the Texas law, which proscribed homosexual sodomy while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the petitioners, went above and beyond the call of duty and took advantage of the situation to ask the Court to overturn its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision.
Since its decision, Bowers has been used as a precedent to uphold a myriad of morality laws.
The Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision sinisterly declares "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today
In addition to overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, the phrases used in the Lawrence decision establish a new precedent that may be used to overturn all laws related to adult consensual sex. The ruling declares "…liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their lives in matters pertaining to sex."
Court proclaims that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."
The original right to privacy is found in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
The origins of our modern "Right to Privacy" are found in what are known as penumbras of constitutional rights or penumbral rights. A penumbra is a partial shadow between regions of complete darkness and complete illumination, as in an eclipse. In law, penumbra refers to an area in which something exists in a lesser or uncertain degree. Penumbral rights are rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention, but may be implied by the rights that are enumerated. The idea of penumbral rights is not foreign to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment assures that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Here is another idiot who does not respect the constitution or understand our system of laws and government in a Constitutional Republic.
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
... that enumerated power is to provide for the general welfare of the nation. You don't have to understand it... But it is what it is.You're fucking deranged.
The very first item in that list begins the list of enumerated powers...
... starting with the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
And again, it bears repeating because you are so brain-dead .... if you claim that is not an enumerated power and that Congress has no powers beyond the enumerated powers following that first one, then it's unconstitutional for Congress to fund the Air Force since the Air Force is not specifically enumerated.
Do you see now how fucking retarded you have to be to assert such a ridiculous position?
No Fauny. YOU are the one who cant wrap you diminutive little "mind" around a not exactly subtle difference between an enumerated power and one of the list of objective for which the enumerated power is given.
Congress DOES have an enumerated power to lay taxes. That power granted to Congress is to enable the Government to address some pretty lofty goals. For example, the power to lay taxes has AS ONE of its purposes, "to pay the Debts . . ."
I realize that this sails over your petty little mind but --
the subject itself it isn't hard at all. YOU are merely uncommonly dull witted.
The enumerate power here is "to lay and collect taxes TO PROVIDE FOR ... [a litany of purposes is then spelled out]." That should be more than enough clue even for a simpleton like you. The POWER EXISTS for a number of purposes. Those purposes are then set forth. The purposes are not themselves enumerated powers, you dolt.
Wrong, Fauny.
You STILL flail futilely.
The enumerated power is: to lay taxes.
One of the purposes for granting that power is so that Congress may provide for the general welfare.
The enumerated power is for a purpose or purposes. The purpose(s) don't get magically converted into enumerated powers on that basis, you bombastic simpleton.
Obviously simple basic comprehension skills are far beyond your tragically limited abilities. But as you incorrectly tried to say about me, you did say something on point (albeit about you, instead): It is NOT required that you understand it. Your ignorance and vapidity are what they are. Boundless.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,396
- 3,635
At least you understand they can provide for the general welfare of the nation. That alone puts you leaps and bounds above most of your fellow yahoos.... that enumerated power is to provide for the general welfare of the nation. You don't have to understand it... But it is what it is.You're fucking deranged.
The very first item in that list begins the list of enumerated powers...
... starting with the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
And again, it bears repeating because you are so brain-dead .... if you claim that is not an enumerated power and that Congress has no powers beyond the enumerated powers following that first one, then it's unconstitutional for Congress to fund the Air Force since the Air Force is not specifically enumerated.
Do you see now how fucking retarded you have to be to assert such a ridiculous position?
No Fauny. YOU are the one who cant wrap you diminutive little "mind" around a not exactly subtle difference between an enumerated power and one of the list of objective for which the enumerated power is given.
Congress DOES have an enumerated power to lay taxes. That power granted to Congress is to enable the Government to address some pretty lofty goals. For example, the power to lay taxes has AS ONE of its purposes, "to pay the Debts . . ."
I realize that this sails over your petty little mind but --
the subject itself it isn't hard at all. YOU are merely uncommonly dull witted.
The enumerate power here is "to lay and collect taxes TO PROVIDE FOR ... [a litany of purposes is then spelled out]." That should be more than enough clue even for a simpleton like you. The POWER EXISTS for a number of purposes. Those purposes are then set forth. The purposes are not themselves enumerated powers, you dolt.
Wrong, Fauny.
You STILL flail futilely.
The enumerated power is: to lay taxes.
One of the purposes for granting that power is so that Congress may provide for the general welfare.
The enumerated power is for a purpose or purposes. The purpose(s) don't get magically converted into enumerated powers on that basis, you bombastic simpleton.
Obviously simple basic comprehension skills are far beyond your tragically limited abilities. But as you incorrectly tried to say about me, you did say something on point (albeit about you, instead): It is NOT required that you understand it. Your ignorance and vapidity are what they are. Boundless.
ShootSpeeders
Gold Member
- May 13, 2012
- 20,232
- 2,373
- 280
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #616
Ok, but a much better argument is to say the constitution denies courts authority to write laws like they did in roe.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,396
- 3,635
The court does not write laws; rendering you wrong before you even get started.
KokomoJojo
VIP Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; [they did one step better, they have established themselves as a religion] they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” ~James Madison
Madison is saying that general welfare does not give the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars… But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? (Federalists #41) ~Alexander Hamilton
The argument he makes is that the general welfare clause gives the government unquestionable ability to do what it wants as long as it is in the general welfare, good for everyone. He even disagrees with himself sometimes as he was the author of many Federalist Papers:
The only qualification of the generality of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication. ~Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton was arguing that the general welfare phrase only applies to the powers authorize to Congress in the Constitution. Again we see the founders had a clear view of this phrase even when they seem to contradict themselves.
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, [good v. evil = religion] it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. ~Thomas Jefferson
The people who say we don’t know what the Founders meant about any particular phrase in the Constitution are just plain wrong, because they fail to do their research about the matter.
I did not read the thread but whoever agrees with the above I agree with them.
Presently the gubmint has well established itself as a religion, and while the courts do not write law they have the power to construct and deconstruct it outside the purview of the people, and later the guns to enforce those decisions on the people despite those who do not agree.
No where in the constitution are we to expect that we must give up our rights to appease some agenda of democracy outside their legitimate jurisdiction 'commerce'.
Warning lights are flashing down at Quality Control Somebody threw a spanner and they threw him in the hole There's rumors in the loading bay and anger in the town Somebody blew the whistle and the walls came down There's a meeting in the boardroom they're trying to trace the smell There's leaking in the washroom there's a sneak in personnel Somewhere in the corridors someone was heard to sneeze 'goodness me could this be Industrial Disease?
The caretaker was crucified for sleeping at his post They're refusing to be pacified it's him they blame the most The watchdog's got rabies the foreman's got fleas And everyone's concerned about Industrial Disease
There's panic on the switchboard tongues are ties in knots Some come out in sympathy some come out in spots Some blame the management some the employees And everybody knows it's the Industrial Disease
The work force is disgusted downs tools and walks Innocence is injured experience just talks Everyone seeks damages and everyone agrees That these are 'classic symptoms of a monetary squeeze'
On ITV and BBC they talk about the curse Philosophy is useless theology is worse
History boils over there's an economics freeze
Sociologists invent words that mean 'Industrial Disease'
Doctor Parkinson declared 'I'm not surprised to see you here You've got smokers cough from smoking, brewer's droop from drinking beer I don't know how you came to get the Betty Davis knees But worst of all young man you've got Industrial Disease'
He wrote me a prescription he said 'you are depressed But I'm glad you came to see me to get this off your chest Come back and see me later - next patient please Send in another victim of Industrial Disease'
I go down to Speaker's Corner I'm thunderstruck
They got free speech, tourists, police in trucks
Two men say they're Jesus one of them must be wrong
There's a protest singer singing a protest song - he says 'they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees
They wanna have a war to keep their factories They wanna have a war to stop us buying Japanese They wanna have a war to stop Industrial Disease
They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind They wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind They give you Rule Brittania, gassy beer, page three Two weeks in Espana and Sunday striptease' Meanwhile the first Jesus says 'I'd cure it soon Abolish monday mornings and friday afternoons' The other one's on a hunger strike he's dying by degrees
How come Jesus gets Industrial Disease
Since I am on a roll why stop there huh?
The Courts and the Commerce Clause: Obliterating Original Intent
by D.T. Armentano, Mises.org
Article one Section 8 of the U S Constitution states that the “congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states.” [which means between the states] This so-called “commerce clause” is the legal bedrock for all federal regulation of business activity that crosses state lines. Every piece of federal economic regulation from the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) to all of the 1930s New Deal securities and banking law has been rationalized (made “constitutional”) by reference to the commerce clause.
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) , the Supreme Court expanded the original interpretation of the commerce clause to cover intrastate economic activity that was said to “affect” interstate commerce. Wickard grew wheat for his own consumption but the court reasoned that the wheat locally consumed could, theoretically, [purely a overlord court invention] have been sold in interstate commerce; so when Wickard “withdrew” that wheat and consumed it, output and prices in interstate commerce were affected.
Hence the Feds could regulate locally grown wheat and the legislation that prescribed that was constitutional. The “logic” of Wickard obliterated two original and important constitutional principles, namely (1) that the states can regulate their own commerce, not the Feds and (2) that the federal Constitution embodies only limited and clearly enumerated powers.
Wickard substantiated the notion that the Feds could now regulate ANY economic activity (with little resistance from individuals or the states) since almost ANY good or service produced and consumed locally could, at least theoretically, affect interstate commerce.
We have all lived in a post-Wickard regulatory world ever since. So in some sense, the medical marijuana case decided June 6th, 2005 (Gonzales v Raich, et al..) in favor of the government (6-3) was an easy slam dunk (see also S. Kinsella’s post on the topic).
Reich and the other defendants in California grew marijuana for their own consumption but the majority asserted, following Wickard, that such private activity “affected” interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated (prohibited) by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), regardless of California state law which allowed (with supervision) such activity. If you don’t like the decision, the majority suggested, get the votes and attempt to change the federal drug laws.
There are many problems with the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens. The most obvious is the continued acceptance of the logic of Wickard. As Justice Thomas argues in his brilliant dissent, if growing 6 marijuana plants on your own property for your own consumption is “economic activity” that can “affect” interstate commerce, then there is absolutely nothing under the economic sun (including pot luck dinners) that cannot be regulated by the federal congress. But, clearly, that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
The courts have long destroyed the constitution in the name of commercialized CORPORATE statism the true american religion and exemplifies the inherent problem when any country under any name as a supreme king or a supreme court and demonstrates their hypocrisy when they take actions against the people, and the people can do nothing about it as they are bombarded with these types of rulings on a near daily basis.
First the legislature does not consider themselves under any obligation to produce law in 'strict' conformance with the constitution.
They have staff attorneys that decide if any law they want to pass can somehow be constructed to get it through the courts, the true king ruler of this country.
It takes one quick court case for them to misconstrue, misrepresent, or otherwise violate the contract and its PAID IN FULL with PUBLIC MONEY and the ONLY way to change or correct it it is though an act of congress, and there are no provisions provided to the people to even get it up for a vote where it falls right back in their laps to violate it again.
Worse anyone who disagrees is forced to PAY OUT OF POCKET with PRIVATE FUNDS.
The whole fucking arrangement is government by RICO and designed to prejudice any dissent from the people.
sad state of affairs
Last edited:
Holos
Senior Member
I think that even as you mentioned correctly that writing and repealing laws are legislative powers, the legislative power itself does not equal or commence with writing and repealing laws.
Legislative powers begin with the reading and understanding of laws and it is this fundamental aspect of it (even more fundamental than writing and repealing the laws) that the Judicial powers are established in and therefore are made able to be efficiently exercised.
Concerning the question in the title of the thread I think we can probably refer to the first paragraph of Section 8 of Article 1.
I would be glad to discuss the paragraph if you would like to.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 50,330
- 12,223
- 2,180
This is hilarious.
You say that all the Legislative power is with the legislature, and then say that this then proves that the Judicial power should be with the LEGISLATIVE.
I mean, this is a complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution and the powers within the Constitution.
What next? The Legislature has the EXECUTIVE POWERS? Or Trump decides that he holds all power of the Government, like he pretends he will have if he gets elected?
Legislative power.
Definition of “legislative” | Collins American English Dictionary
"having the power to make laws"
Definition of “judiciary” | Collins American English Dictionary
"the part of government whose work is the administration of justice"
So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.
If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Best response ever to the stupidest question ever: Does Israel have the right to exist?- Started by Street Juice
- Replies: 0
-
He's still waiting for FOI records Toronto police said he could have last summer, requested in 2020- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
Hero of the left, freed Palestinian Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdaw wanted to buy a sniper rifle and spoke of shooting Jews- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 6
-
-
Bernie Sanders tries to explain why he flies to his hate rallies on private jets, and it's not going well- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 7
