A constitutional tipping point

[The Rabbi]

You are on a roll today.

Most stupid posts in one day? Candycorn has an amazing ability to post the worst tripe--factually wrong, intellectually lazy, and internally contradictory.

Projecting again I see

Projecting truth. As always.

 

[Iceweasel]

Probably just to shut up the cry babies that want to change the issue.

So now he's both disingenuous and wrong...great.

Anyway, politics rules the day in Congress as you just proved (unless you are endorsing such false behavior). This is the only constitutional crisis; parties are favored over people and we really need to change the system (i.e. Constitution) to prevent the parties from totally sacrificing the nation.

You are on a roll today.

I hope it's not a jelly roll, that might stain her blue dress.

 

[candycorn]

So now he's both disingenuous and wrong...great.

I don't know him personally so you have an advantage over me. Soothing hurt feelings in order to get back to business seems sensible, not disingenuous.

Anyway, politics rules the day in Congress as you just proved (unless you are endorsing such false behavior). This is the only constitutional crisis; parties are favored over people and we really need to change the system (i.e. Constitution) to prevent the parties from totally sacrificing the nation.

Politics have always ruled the day. When a party uses government power to supress opposition THAT is putting politics over people. You would be behind the investigation 100% if you were sincere.

Oh, you mean like when I said the following:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-russia-s-naked-aggresion-25.html#post8714396

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/305541-phony-scandals-17.html#post7638818

I was talking about investigating it before you got here sonny so up yours. And if you were perfectly candid, you'd talk about the left-leaning groups that had their filings audited as well.

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors

---

Anyway getting back to the point, Issa knew he had done wrong, apologized and for some reason, you're trying to rationalize why he did it in the first place and psychoanalyze the apology into not meaning anything in the second place.

When you have to perform that sort of mental gymnastics to try desperately to make a point...it should occur to you that you have no leg to stand on.

You do agree with me that Politics rule the day. I doubt they "always" ruled the day since we were able to come together thousands of times in the past 230+ years to vanquish foes, vanquish diseases, vanquish depression and want, fund the bold reaches into space, harness the natural resources of the land, expand westward etc... Yet somehow, you want to get into "well Cummings breached decorum" while ignoring the fact that if Issa had just let him speak it would not be something anyone noticed outside of people who are watching the committee spin it's wheels for no gain what so ever.

Again, it's a reflex that if you can bust someone who you disagree with, you do it if they are from a different party. Both parties do it and both parties are wrong for doing it.

We need to address this before the parties--the UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARTIES--irrevocably harm the nation any further.

 

[candycorn]

So now he's both disingenuous and wrong...great.

Anyway, politics rules the day in Congress as you just proved (unless you are endorsing such false behavior). This is the only constitutional crisis; parties are favored over people and we really need to change the system (i.e. Constitution) to prevent the parties from totally sacrificing the nation.

You are on a roll today.

Most stupid posts in one day? Candycorn has an amazing ability to post the worst tripe--factually wrong, intellectually lazy, and internally contradictory.

Yes and you have carnal knowledge of Princess Feebus's junk...

 

[JakeStarkey]

So we should go back to pre-Marbury?

Ignore more than 200 years of events and developments that has significantly affected this country and the world?

No.

 

[candycorn]

Probably just to shut up the cry babies that want to change the issue.

So now he's both disingenuous and wrong...great.

Anyway, politics rules the day in Congress as you just proved (unless you are endorsing such false behavior). This is the only constitutional crisis; parties are favored over people and we really need to change the system (i.e. Constitution) to prevent the parties from totally sacrificing the nation.

You are on a roll today.

I had too much vacation time at the office so they are forcing me to take off for about 2 weeks. I can come back next Thursday. In the good old days, we could sell out time back to the company at three-quarters pay. But instead of dropping it to a half or a quarter, they just said, if you're over 240 hours, you have to take it down to 240.... By next Thursday, I'll be down to 240.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are on a roll today.

Most stupid posts in one day? Candycorn has an amazing ability to post the worst tripe--factually wrong, intellectually lazy, and internally contradictory.

Yes and you have carnal knowledge of Princess Feebus's junk...

Wow, like anyone asked for proof.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The idea that the Supreme Court has the final word on everything constitutional is written nowhere in the Constitution, and is based on some very dubious and questionable arguments.

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court’s authority with regard to judicial review can be found in Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

Moreover, the doctrine of judicial review was established and long-practiced in Colonial America well before the advent of the Foundation Era, where the Framing generation fully expected the Federal courts and Supreme Court to review the validity of acts of Congress and other jurisdictions and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison (1803)).

In fact, Marbury was the acknowledgement and reaffirmation of the doctrine of judicial review, that the doctrine predated the Constitution and Republic, and was in no way a ‘contrivance’ of the Court.

 

[peach174]

The problem is that we have congress who thinks they can pass anything and that it is up to Supreme Court to rule.

That Fact is The Federal Congress should never pass anything that is in our Amendments period.

 

[The Rabbi]

The idea that the Supreme Court has the final word on everything constitutional is written nowhere in the Constitution, and is based on some very dubious and questionable arguments.

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court’s authority with regard to judicial review can be found in Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

Moreover, the doctrine of judicial review was established and long-practiced in Colonial America well before the advent of the Foundation Era, where the Framing generation fully expected the Federal courts and Supreme Court to review the validity of acts of Congress and other jurisdictions and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison (1803)).

In fact, Marbury was the acknowledgement and reaffirmation of the doctrine of judicial review, that the doctrine predated the Constitution and Republic, and was in no way a ‘contrivance’ of the Court.

Wrong.
Judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court took that power in Marbury, as you say, based on ancient common law precedents. Which are still a valid reason, btw.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You folks have been singing this song for 5 years now. It's played and false

Who is you folks?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nonsense.

Consequently, as with Congress, the courts determine whether the president has acted in an un-Constitutional manner, or used powers not afforded him by the Constitution.

Moreover, the president never said he was going to ‘bypass Congress,’ ‘go it alone,’ or ‘create laws’ absent Congress:

“[W]herever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…” in the context of the authority afforded the president by the Constitution. And should any citizen believe the president has used authority not afforded him by the Constitution, that citizens is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the president’s actions, as we saw with regard to George W. Bush in Medelln v Texas.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court does not get involved the issues you just claimed that the fact they never ruled on proves that they are constitutional? If it actually works that way, and since the courts have never declared that I am not God, I must be God.

Those that require the government to have unlimited powers require this view in order to support the asinine idea. It is unfortunate that the average person now sees things this way - the all powerful and benevolent government must be able to do anything it wants. We are sliding away from a separation of powers and people seem to be more than ignoring it - they are demanding it.

Even cheering for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The idea that the Supreme Court has the final word on everything constitutional is written nowhere in the Constitution, and is based on some very dubious and questionable arguments.

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court’s authority with regard to judicial review can be found in Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

Moreover, the doctrine of judicial review was established and long-practiced in Colonial America well before the advent of the Foundation Era, where the Framing generation fully expected the Federal courts and Supreme Court to review the validity of acts of Congress and other jurisdictions and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison (1803)).

In fact, Marbury was the acknowledgement and reaffirmation of the doctrine of judicial review, that the doctrine predated the Constitution and Republic, and was in no way a ‘contrivance’ of the Court.

Wrong.
Judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court took that power in Marbury, as you say, based on ancient common law precedents. Which are still a valid reason, btw.

You were give chapter and verse, TR, and you give us your opinion?

You better notify SCOTUS then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you aware that the Supreme Court does not get involved the issues you just claimed that the fact they never ruled on proves that they are constitutional? If it actually works that way, and since the courts have never declared that I am not God, I must be God.

Those that require the government to have unlimited powers require this view in order to support the asinine idea. It is unfortunate that the average person now sees things this way - the all powerful and benevolent government must be able to do anything it wants. We are sliding away from a separation of powers and people seem to be more than ignoring it - they are demanding it.

Your comments are interesting. And I mean interesting in truth--not trying to be ironic or insult you.

Recently, Representative Issa shut off Representative Cummings microphone during a hearing. This has been done by both parties to members of the minority party during hearings.

Constitutionally all representatives are equal. Yet We the People have allowed these political parties to empower some more than others. If there is a Constitutional problem that we face is that our representatives have placed party servitude at the front of their to do list.

Turning back the clock to the Issa/Cumming and any of the previous times this happened, had the chair just let the minority member speak, the speech she/he gave would be quickly forgotten yet when these extreme measures are taken to silence opposition; well it's something that gains attention.

As for your post...blame the parties for this "you must comply" mentality. It is not only important for the survival of you as a political animal (no patronage, no Pesos during election season), but it's now become a reflex. Had Issa or any of these other guys who have done this to the minority thought about it...they would have just let the opposition speak and gavel the hearing to a close and the public would never notice.... Do you know what happened in Congress on February 25? Me neither. Were they in session? Dunno...there were no fireworks.

Power comes from the parties and our representatives are 100% vested in servitude to these thoroughly unconstitutional and, in my opinion, un-American entities.

There is your crisis.

What the fuck does any of this have to do with the subject of FA_Q2's post?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the world needs is more honest left wing progressives

If they were honest, they wouldn't be left wing progressives.

The Left wing has been hammering Obama for years and years. And unlike the so called CONS the LEFT WING'S complaints are reality based, too.

But the right wing know-nothings still think the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is left wing, so the right winger morons never notice.

Honestly, the OWS movement and the Tea Party often complain about exactly the same things.

The major difference is the real left wingers knows that both the DEMS and the REPS are in on the scam.

The TPers are still so fucking obsessed with Obama Derangement Syndrome, they don't have time to LEARN ANYTHING REAL about their world.

What the fuck? Are you fucking high? The right wing makes the exact same complaints as the left wing, what the fuck are the right wing complaints based on? Is it possible that you are a fucking idiot?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've just discovered this forum, I'm very surprised to see how many posts seem to defend Obama and his antics. R S E P T and they make fun Bush. Hypocrits.
There must be a reason for their blind devotion, either they are goofing on us with their absurdity, or they are profoundly under-informed politically or they lack the intellectual ability to comprehend the seriousness of our situation or they are socialist/marxists. Whatever the reason, they are allowing our great nation to be decimated by Obama's radical agenda. Soros is smiling.

Or we don't get worked up when Obama does the same stuff implementng laws that EVERY OTHER president has done.

Incidently, I think that the ACA is a hot mess. Obama made so many concessions to the Insurance Industry trying to get one Republican to sign on that he largely hobbled the good intent of the law.

They should have just expanded Medicare to everyone and called it a day.

I don't get worked up over that either. Unfortunately, you don't know enough about breathing to understand why what Obama is doing is different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where the FUCK were you "patriots" when Bush was setting the standard?

Where the fuck were you when I was complaining about Bush?

Let me clue you into how politics work vis a vis international relations and especially homeland insecurity.

This should be almost as insightful as a franco post.

NOTHING put into place by a "conservative" President can be repealed by a "librul" President without it bringing an end to western civilization, apple pie, and attendance at your nearest Walmart.

Which explains why we still have slavery.

Moreover, the reason for this is money. Money for defense contracts, contracts that overwhelmingly favor the right wing rather than the left, but those with SUCH deep pockets that they control the media and (barf) NEWS outlets that drive (dum ta DUMB) "public opinion."

Umm, what? Do you think that the defense unions, who own the Democrats, might have some say in defense contracts? Do you honestly think we ended up with a plane the Pentagon didn't want when Clinton was president simply because Clinton was unwilling to challenge Boeing?

And the circle jerk is complete.

You got the jerk part right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So now he's both disingenuous and wrong...great.

I don't know him personally so you have an advantage over me. Soothing hurt feelings in order to get back to business seems sensible, not disingenuous.

Anyway, politics rules the day in Congress as you just proved (unless you are endorsing such false behavior). This is the only constitutional crisis; parties are favored over people and we really need to change the system (i.e. Constitution) to prevent the parties from totally sacrificing the nation.

Politics have always ruled the day. When a party uses government power to supress opposition THAT is putting politics over people. You would be behind the investigation 100% if you were sincere.

Oh, you mean like when I said the following:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-russia-s-naked-aggresion-25.html#post8714396

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/305541-phony-scandals-17.html#post7638818

I was talking about investigating it before you got here sonny so up yours. And if you were perfectly candid, you'd talk about the left-leaning groups that had their filings audited as well.

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors

---

Anyway getting back to the point, Issa knew he had done wrong, apologized and for some reason, you're trying to rationalize why he did it in the first place and psychoanalyze the apology into not meaning anything in the second place.

When you have to perform that sort of mental gymnastics to try desperately to make a point...it should occur to you that you have no leg to stand on.

You do agree with me that Politics rule the day. I doubt they "always" ruled the day since we were able to come together thousands of times in the past 230+ years to vanquish foes, vanquish diseases, vanquish depression and want, fund the bold reaches into space, harness the natural resources of the land, expand westward etc... Yet somehow, you want to get into "well Cummings breached decorum" while ignoring the fact that if Issa had just let him speak it would not be something anyone noticed outside of people who are watching the committee spin it's wheels for no gain what so ever.

Again, it's a reflex that if you can bust someone who you disagree with, you do it if they are from a different party. Both parties do it and both parties are wrong for doing it.

We need to address this before the parties--the UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARTIES--irrevocably harm the nation any further.

Instead of going out of your way to prove that others are partisan hacks, why not set an example and actually criticize everyone when you think they are wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So we should go back to pre-Marbury?

Ignore more than 200 years of events and developments that has significantly affected this country and the world?

No.

What the fuck are you blithering about now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is that we have congress who thinks they can pass anything and that it is up to Supreme Court to rule.

That Fact is The Federal Congress should never pass anything that is in our Amendments period.

This doesn’t make any sense.

But in an attempt to respond to this garbled nonsense, the problem is ignorant conservatives and partisan rightists who disdain the rule of law because the courts rule in a manner contrary to their subjective and errant political agenda; rather than working to understand and accept the Constitution and its case law, they instead seek to impugn the doctrines of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the Federal courts for some perceived political gain.

All acts of Congress are Constitutional until a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, rules otherwise (US v. Lopez (1995)). Although it is incumbent upon Congress to enact measures that comport with the Constitution, it is nonetheless at liberty to enact measures it considers both necessary and proper. The people, should they perceive acts of Congress offensive to the Constitution, are also at liberty to file suit in Federal court, and seek relief from government excess.

This is the fundamental nature and process of our government, exactly as the Framers intended it to work.