I think it is time to impeach the Supreme Court justices

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Show us where the 10th amendment says that states can nullify federal laws.

The 10A and the Supremacy Clause give states the authority. Read and

think

 

[Harry Dresden]

We could start with Scalia. Next would be Thomas. Then we could get rid of Alito and Roberts.

the others aint so great either Sallow.....these people should have terms.....say 10 years then you are out of there.....

 

[Avatar4321]

All justices that have made rulings that do not align with the constitution of the United States and follow more a political ideology need to be impeached by congress. By bypassing the constitution and the vote of the people, the justices are committing treason. The Supreme Court justices are not the end all be all of the constitution, the congress and states are the end all be all of the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice cannot just change the will of the states and the congress just because it thinks it should. They are meant to merely interpret the constitution and the laws not change them as they see fit. For far too long the Supreme Court has become the United States ruling council not much different than the ruling clerics in Iran. To be honest I could care less about Gay Marriage whether it is allowed or dis-allowed but it should be up to the states and its citizens whether or not to give a certain group of people benefit rights from the government. It is not as if they could not marry. They just could not legally do so and get tax breaks and benefits in a marriage outside of marrying the opposite sex partner. This ruling and the ruling on allowing the federal government to fine people for not purchasing health insurance are signs that the Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws but deciding what laws it likes and does not like based on ideology.

Sure. Let's let Obama remake the Court in his image. Im sure the Country will survive that.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The supreme court has given itself the power to rewrite the constitution. They did it in roe v wade and plyer v doe and bush v gore and in these latest cases involving pervert marriage.

The states need to stand up to the SC and tell them "if you want to alter the constitution you must go thru the amending process".

 

[Avatar4321]

States need to assert their constitutional right to nullify federal laws. The supremacy clause and the tenth amendment makes it clear they have that right.

The Supremacy clause directly contradicts the concept of nullification.

 

[Avatar4321]

[

Show us where the 10th amendment says that states can nullify federal laws.

The 10A and the Supremacy Clause give states the authority. Read and

think

Again, the Supremacy Clause gives Federal Law the status of trumping State law.

 

[Avatar4321]

The supreme court has given itself the power to rewrite the constitution. They did it in roe v wade and plyer v doe and bush v gore and in these latest cases involving pervert marriage.

The states need to stand up to the SC and tell them "if you want to alter the constitution you must go thru the amending process".

The States are crippled in standing up to the Federal government because the states gave up their check on the Federal government when the 17th amendment was passed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[

Show us where the 10th amendment says that states can nullify federal laws.

The 10A and the Supremacy Clause give states the authority. Read and

think

Now we want none of your lib'ral loose construction of the Constitution.

Show us exactly where it says the 10th can nullify federal laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The supreme court has given itself the power to rewrite the constitution. They did it in roe v wade and plyer v doe and bush v gore and in these latest cases involving pervert marriage.

The states need to stand up to the SC and tell them "if you want to alter the constitution you must go thru the amending process".

The States are crippled in standing up to the Federal government because the states gave up their check on the Federal government when the 17th amendment was passed.

You are, in part, correct.

 

[Avatar4321]

The supreme court has given itself the power to rewrite the constitution. They did it in roe v wade and plyer v doe and bush v gore and in these latest cases involving pervert marriage.

The states need to stand up to the SC and tell them "if you want to alter the constitution you must go thru the amending process".

The States are crippled in standing up to the Federal government because the states gave up their check on the Federal government when the 17th amendment was passed.

You are, in part, correct.

No, my friend, I am completely correct. The only real check the States have on the Federal government is their ability to sue them. Not what the Founders intended.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Believe that all you want, Avatar, if it helps.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Show us exactly where it says the 10th can nullify federal laws.

The 10A says a power not given to the feds is retained by the states. The C never says who has the authority to nullify laws so the states have it. think

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The States are crippled in standing up to the Federal government because the states gave up their check on the Federal government when the 17th amendment was passed.

Uranimbecile. All the 17A did was provide popular election of senators. think

 

[JakeStarkey]

[

Show us exactly where it says the 10th can nullify federal laws.

The 10A says a power not given to the feds is retained by the states. The C never says who has the authority to nullify laws so the states have it. think

Its says nothing about nullification, or about secession, for that matter.

Are you one of them gub'mint lib'rals trying expand the constitution with "interpretation", hmmm? You believe in a loose construction, hmmm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

[

The States are crippled in standing up to the Federal government because the states gave up their check on the Federal government when the 17th amendment was passed.

Uranimbecile. All the 17A did was provide popular election of senators. think

Be nice, Avatar knows that he meant the 16thA. Give a guy a break, hmmmm.

 

[KevinWestern]

All justices that have made rulings that do not align with the constitution of the United States and follow more a political ideology need to be impeached by congress. By bypassing the constitution and the vote of the people, the justices are committing treason. The Supreme Court justices are not the end all be all of the constitution, the congress and states are the end all be all of the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice cannot just change the will of the states and the congress just because it thinks it should. They are meant to merely interpret the constitution and the laws not change them as they see fit. For far too long the Supreme Court has become the United States ruling council not much different than the ruling clerics in Iran. To be honest I could care less about Gay Marriage whether it is allowed or dis-allowed but it should be up to the states and its citizens whether or not to give a certain group of people benefit rights from the government. It is not as if they could not marry. They just could not legally do so and get tax breaks and benefits in a marriage outside of marrying the opposite sex partner. This ruling and the ruling on allowing the federal government to fine people for not purchasing health insurance are signs that the Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws but deciding what laws it likes and does not like based on ideology.

I think it comes down to this...

Who has more Authority to decide what is or what's not Constitutional; an officially appointed Supreme Court Justice or a random internet poster person?

Ultimately, it's the former.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is going to break ShootSpeeders' heart.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

[

Show us where the 10th amendment says that states can nullify federal laws.

The 10A and the Supremacy Clause give states the authority. Read and

think

Now we want none of your lib'ral loose construction of the Constitution.

Show us exactly where it says the 10th can nullify federal laws.

Watching you use the term liberal as an insult to others is hysterical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a hoot because, gramps, you are more liberal than me.

The 10th does not endorse nullification or secession: nothing in it at all.

Anybody who says it does is engaged with liberal construction to twist the meaning.

 

[Avatar4321]

[

The States are crippled in standing up to the Federal government because the states gave up their check on the Federal government when the 17th amendment was passed.

Uranimbecile. All the 17A did was provide popular election of senators. think

The 17A removed power the States to check the Federal Government in Congress.

When the Founders established our Congress they created two chambers. First, the House of Representatives which were to be elected by the people and represent the pople. Second, the Senate, which was to be selected by the State governments and represent those governments.

That way the three powers: The people, the State, and the Feds would each balance and check one another.

The 17th amendment removed the power from the States to pick Senators and gave it to the people. Thus just turning them into another chamber like the house chosen to represent the people. Also allowing them to be corrupted by special interests. Before the 17th amendment, if the special interests wanted to buy a Senator, they would have to corrupt the state legislators. Now they can just donate straight to their campaigns.

It's not a coincidence that after the 17th amendment passed, the progressives were able to grow the size of government exponentially. Except for the time immediately after it's passage when we had Harding/Coolidge governing the country who actually shrank the size of government (leading to one of the biggest economic booms in history) the elimination of the State's check on government has expanded government exponentially. Unfortunately, we cant always or even frequently elect government officials who will limit their power.

The States cannot stop Federal legislation such as unfunded mandates like they used to. Before they could eliminate things in the Senate. Since the Senate was given to the people, the States can't do that anymore. All they can do is petition the court and the court has been relunctant to grant relief. Which, quite frankly, they should be since relief should be provided for by Congress.

So yes, I have thought about it before. I've thought about it a lot. Every action and amendment we make has consequences that change our government. Changing the 17th amendment altered the balance of power between the people, States, and the Feds. There are consequences to that even if we want to ignore it.

BTW you still haven't even attempted to explain how the Supremacy Clause, which grants that Federal Law trumps State law somehow empowers a concept of nullification. Saying "think" isn't an argument. And it's disingenuous when you refuse to do so yourself.