Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL so you do NOT deny that article 3 exists , you do not deny that Article 3 CLEARLY gives to the Supreme and Federal Courts the power it does, you just think cause of your definition of federal powers that the Court should NOT exist.

Once again article 3 CLEARLY and straightforwardly gives to the Supreme Court and Federal Courts the power of law and judgement over the Federal Government. Amendment 11 does not in any way take away from the power granted in article 3. But YOU think cause your definition is better that somehow that supersedes the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL so you do NOT deny that article 3 exists , you do not deny that Article 3 CLEARLY gives to the Supreme and Federal Courts the power it does, you just think cause of your definition of federal powers that the Court should NOT exist.

Once again article 3 CLEARLY and straightforwardly gives to the Supreme Court and Federal Courts the power of law and judgement over the Federal Government. Amendment 11 does not in any way take away from the power granted in article 3. But YOU think cause your definition is better that somehow that supersedes the Constitution.

Are you claiming not to understand that the authority to decide every issue of human life was not what the framers had in mind?

How many authorities must I cite, and how much history must you be appraised of, before you understand the theft of power by the Court?


I bet you can't figure out why the rest of the Federal government doesn't simply slap the Court's hand.
Think about it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

You may imagine you understand the Supreme Court better than I.....you'd be wrong....but how about scholars that I've quoted and you've ignored.

Robert Heron Bork was an American judge, government official and legal scholar who served as the Solicitor General of the United States from 1973 to 1977. A professor at Yale Law School by occupation, he later served as a judge on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1982 to 1988. Wikipedia

Lino Anthony Graglia is the A. W. Walker Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas specializing in antitrust litigation. He earned a BA from the City College of New York in 1952, and an LLB from Columbia University in 1954, before working in the Eisenhower administration's United States Department of Justice. Wikipedia


Ilan Wurman is a visiting assistant professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, where he teaches administrative law and constitutional law.
fedsoc.org › contributors › ilan-wurman

Ilan Wurman | The Federalist Society


Alexander Hamilton

....among others.



They understand the narrow purview of the Court.


You don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

"Your whining and crying...."

I don't whine or cry, I simply educate.

You choose not to accept education....which is your right.


But you have convinced me that a series on the Supreme Court is necessary.

Does that cause you hand-wringing?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

"Your whining and crying...."

I don't whine or cry, I simply educate.

You choose not to accept education....which is your right.


But you have convinced me that a series on the Supreme Court is necessary.

Does that cause you hand-wringing?

The 3rd article of the Constitution is written in plain English, you can bitch and moan all you want but the Constitution clearly gives to the Federal Courts the power to over see all Federal dealings in legal matters before a court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

"Your whining and crying...."

I don't whine or cry, I simply educate.

You choose not to accept education....which is your right.


But you have convinced me that a series on the Supreme Court is necessary.

Does that cause you hand-wringing?

The 3rd article of the Constitution is written in plain English, you can bitch and moan all you want but the Constitution clearly gives to the Federal Courts the power to over see all Federal dealings in legal matters before a court.

I educate....you ignore.

Fools do that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

"Your whining and crying...."

I don't whine or cry, I simply educate.

You choose not to accept education....which is your right.


But you have convinced me that a series on the Supreme Court is necessary.

Does that cause you hand-wringing?

The 3rd article of the Constitution is written in plain English, you can bitch and moan all you want but the Constitution clearly gives to the Federal Courts the power to over see all Federal dealings in legal matters before a court.

I educate....you ignore.

Fools do that.

You have nothing, you still have not explained how amendment 11 somehow prevents the Supreme Court from hearing Federal cases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

"Your whining and crying...."

I don't whine or cry, I simply educate.

You choose not to accept education....which is your right.


But you have convinced me that a series on the Supreme Court is necessary.

Does that cause you hand-wringing?

The 3rd article of the Constitution is written in plain English, you can bitch and moan all you want but the Constitution clearly gives to the Federal Courts the power to over see all Federal dealings in legal matters before a court.

I educate....you ignore.

Fools do that.

You have nothing, you still have not explained how amendment 11 somehow prevents the Supreme Court from hearing Federal cases.

If Article 3 gives the Supreme Court a universal mandate, as it claims today.....why was the 11th amendment passed?

 

[karpenter]

It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....

That's RIGHT
The Courts Have Granted Themselves The Authority To Be Our Mullas

Justice Scalia Said As Much In His Dissent Of Obergefell v. Hodges:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.
This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Read The Entire Scathing Dissent
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL read the damn constitution. Article 3 is plain as day the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts under it have the legal authority and power over all Federal issues, of all issues between individual States, of all issues of conflict between any federal office and another. Your whining and crying cause according to you they shouldn't does not matter in the least. YOU then went on to claim somehow the 11th amendment prevented the Supreme Court from having the power it has.

"Your whining and crying...."

I don't whine or cry, I simply educate.

You choose not to accept education....which is your right.


But you have convinced me that a series on the Supreme Court is necessary.

Does that cause you hand-wringing?

The 3rd article of the Constitution is written in plain English, you can bitch and moan all you want but the Constitution clearly gives to the Federal Courts the power to over see all Federal dealings in legal matters before a court.

I educate....you ignore.

Fools do that.

You have nothing, you still have not explained how amendment 11 somehow prevents the Supreme Court from hearing Federal cases.

If Article 3 gives the Supreme Court a universal mandate, as it claims today.....why was the 11th amendment passed?

The Supreme Court does not claim it has Universal mandate. It has jurisdiction over all FEDERAL cases. ALL of them and the 11th has nothing to do with Federal cases. State cases are still State matters unless the case impinges on Federal authority or laws.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Your whining and crying...."

I don't whine or cry, I simply educate.

You choose not to accept education....which is your right.


But you have convinced me that a series on the Supreme Court is necessary.

Does that cause you hand-wringing?

The 3rd article of the Constitution is written in plain English, you can bitch and moan all you want but the Constitution clearly gives to the Federal Courts the power to over see all Federal dealings in legal matters before a court.

I educate....you ignore.

Fools do that.

You have nothing, you still have not explained how amendment 11 somehow prevents the Supreme Court from hearing Federal cases.

If Article 3 gives the Supreme Court a universal mandate, as it claims today.....why was the 11th amendment passed?

The Supreme Court does not claim it has Universal mandate. It has jurisdiction over all FEDERAL cases. ALL of them and the 11th has nothing to do with Federal cases. State cases are still State matters unless the case impinges on Federal authority or laws.

Wrong.

There is no issue that the Supreme Court simply denies that they can cover, no subject that they won't consider under their purview, no case they would admit should be a local issue, and up to state courts.



A pity that I can't get you to understand the promise of federalism, and it's role in getting the Constitution ratified.

Today's Supreme Court is the antithesis of federalism.



Now.....why can't you answer this question?


I bet you can't figure out why the rest of the Federal government doesn't simply slap the Court's hand.
Why have the executive and legislative branches not pushed back on the theft of power by the judiciary?

 

[Kilroy2]

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. 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.



Now.....why are you back?

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."


OMG!!!


How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!

???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!

Well at least your response is expected from someone who hates to admit when they are wrong

and does not want to answer the question put before her

As a woman are you equal in the eyes of the founding fathers based on words placed in the constitution that I have previously eluded to ?????

besides I did not mention any mistake but instead it is your intention
to make make stuff up to justify your ability to type

You failed to evolve and are just stuck on the words instead of understanding how to adapt the words to the 21 century and beyond

How could I be wrong when you've admitted that my premise is correct???


This is what I said:

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.

It's right there in the OP.....and you couldn't find a way to deny it.


Instead you claimed it is "implied" power.

Luckily, I forced you to check the meaning of 'implied'.....it means suggested, hinted at, guessed, unspoken, unexpressed.....
Your claim is that the Founders forgot to put in writing that the Supreme Court must be obeyed???????


Now.....which of us is the "someone who hates to admit when they are wrong"???

Must be you, huh?


I have no experience at being wrong, you appear to have a great deal of same.

all you do is quote the constitution

then you apply a meaning

quote "That there was a mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts yada yada" is your meaning and why you are wrong

That above is the issues you are stating that its a mistake

just because its is something that is not mention

yet I quote why

it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

by your logic it is clear the constitution in mentioning men are create equal and does not mention woman who by your logic are not equal

Thus we also know that there was slavery in the US

So when the Constitution say all men are equal yet men are also slaves

Also since woman are NOT created as there is no mention of them using your logic they are not equal thus any argument you submit is incorrect because by the constitution you are not created equal to men

If you interpreter that the constitution is correct and nothing can be implied

How as a woman should we accept anything you says as you your whole point is that the constitution meaning cannot be implied

relax as a man I will interpret it for you

It is implied that you are equal to a man

feel better

you do not answer the one question that puts a huge hole in your argument

you just ignore it as you have no answer

Implied powers is as valid as enumerated powers just because certain actions of any branch is not mention does not mean implied powers is incorrect or a mistake

THAT IS THE POINT

if you say its a mistake then you are making a judgement call well where in the constitution does it say that it is a mistake for any branch of government cannot use implied power

2nd you fail to address why the president and congress have implied powers

Yet you do not say anything

address the above

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. 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.



Now.....why are you back?

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."


OMG!!!


How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!

???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!

Well at least your response is expected from someone who hates to admit when they are wrong

and does not want to answer the question put before her

As a woman are you equal in the eyes of the founding fathers based on words placed in the constitution that I have previously eluded to ?????

besides I did not mention any mistake but instead it is your intention
to make make stuff up to justify your ability to type

You failed to evolve and are just stuck on the words instead of understanding how to adapt the words to the 21 century and beyond

How could I be wrong when you've admitted that my premise is correct???


This is what I said:

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.

It's right there in the OP.....and you couldn't find a way to deny it.


Instead you claimed it is "implied" power.

Luckily, I forced you to check the meaning of 'implied'.....it means suggested, hinted at, guessed, unspoken, unexpressed.....
Your claim is that the Founders forgot to put in writing that the Supreme Court must be obeyed???????


Now.....which of us is the "someone who hates to admit when they are wrong"???

Must be you, huh?


I have no experience at being wrong, you appear to have a great deal of same.

all you do is quote the constitution

then you apply a meaning

quote "That there was a mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts yada yada" is your meaning and why you are wrong

That above is the issues you are stating that its a mistake

just because its is something that is not mention

yet I quote why

it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

by your logic it is clear the constitution in mentioning men are create equal and does not mention woman who by your logic are not equal

Thus we also know that there was slavery in the US

So when the Constitution say all men are equal yet men are also slaves

Also since woman are NOT created as there is no mention of them using your logic they are not equal thus any argument you submit is incorrect because by the constitution you are not created equal to men

If you interpreter that the constitution is correct and nothing can be implied

How as a woman should we accept anything you says as you your whole point is that the constitution meaning cannot be implied

relax as a man I will interpret it for you

It is implied that you are equal to a man

feel better

you do not answer the one question that puts a huge hole in your argument

you just ignore it as you have no answer

Implied powers is as valid as enumerated powers just because certain actions of any branch is not mention does not mean implied powers is incorrect or a mistake

THAT IS THE POINT

if you say its a mistake then you are making a judgement call well where in the constitution does it say that it is a mistake for any branch of government cannot use implied power

2nd you fail to address why the president and congress have implied powers

Yet you do not say anything

address the above

"....all you do is quote the constitution...."


Exactly.


No other statutes, 'implied guesses,' assumptions, prevarications, ec., count.


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.



Any decisions of the Supreme Court not authorized and tied to the specific language of the Constitution should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

 

[Kilroy2]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."


OMG!!!


How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!

???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!

Well at least your response is expected from someone who hates to admit when they are wrong

and does not want to answer the question put before her

As a woman are you equal in the eyes of the founding fathers based on words placed in the constitution that I have previously eluded to ?????

besides I did not mention any mistake but instead it is your intention
to make make stuff up to justify your ability to type

You failed to evolve and are just stuck on the words instead of understanding how to adapt the words to the 21 century and beyond

How could I be wrong when you've admitted that my premise is correct???


This is what I said:

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.

It's right there in the OP.....and you couldn't find a way to deny it.


Instead you claimed it is "implied" power.

Luckily, I forced you to check the meaning of 'implied'.....it means suggested, hinted at, guessed, unspoken, unexpressed.....
Your claim is that the Founders forgot to put in writing that the Supreme Court must be obeyed???????


Now.....which of us is the "someone who hates to admit when they are wrong"???

Must be you, huh?


I have no experience at being wrong, you appear to have a great deal of same.

all you do is quote the constitution

then you apply a meaning

quote "That there was a mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts yada yada" is your meaning and why you are wrong

That above is the issues you are stating that its a mistake

just because its is something that is not mention

yet I quote why

it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

by your logic it is clear the constitution in mentioning men are create equal and does not mention woman who by your logic are not equal

Thus we also know that there was slavery in the US

So when the Constitution say all men are equal yet men are also slaves

Also since woman are NOT created as there is no mention of them using your logic they are not equal thus any argument you submit is incorrect because by the constitution you are not created equal to men

If you interpreter that the constitution is correct and nothing can be implied

How as a woman should we accept anything you says as you your whole point is that the constitution meaning cannot be implied

relax as a man I will interpret it for you

It is implied that you are equal to a man

feel better

you do not answer the one question that puts a huge hole in your argument

you just ignore it as you have no answer

Implied powers is as valid as enumerated powers just because certain actions of any branch is not mention does not mean implied powers is incorrect or a mistake

THAT IS THE POINT

if you say its a mistake then you are making a judgement call well where in the constitution does it say that it is a mistake for any branch of government cannot use implied power

2nd you fail to address why the president and congress have implied powers

Yet you do not say anything

address the above

"....all you do is quote the constitution...."


Exactly.


No other statutes, 'implied guesses,' assumptions, prevarications, ec., count.


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.



Any decisions of the Supreme Court not authorized and tied to the specific language of the Constitution should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Annie

YET THEY DO JUDICIAL REVIEWS

The power of judicial review was established in the 1803 Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison.



They have been doing it for 200 plus years

Thus the purpose is to ensure that the other branches abide by the constitution and they can strike it done if it violates the constitution

I guess the Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment

Chief Justice John Marshall: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

well they are the judicial system, they should know what the law or the constitution means

Loving v. Virginia (1967): State laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down.

wow good thing for judicial review or laws can be written to stop interracial marriages

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 (7-0 decision)

Established the federal government's implied powers over the states.

oh there is that nasty word of implied powers

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision)

Denied citizenship to African American slaves.

oh well do you agree with that one

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 (9-0 decision)

Separating black and white students in public schools is unconstitutional

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 (9-0 decision)

Criminal defendants have a right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.
I guess the government could not deny criminal defendants a lawyer even if they had no money

United States v. Nixon, 1974 (8-0 decision)

President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence from criminal trial.

my favorite, can you imagine a president withholding evidence using executive privilege as a way to obstruct justice even when the president was lying

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I still haven't heard your comment on what the constitution means by that statement and what is implied or explicit in that passage

My happiness depends on your answer

 

[PoliticalChic]

"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."


OMG!!!


How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!

???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!

Well at least your response is expected from someone who hates to admit when they are wrong

and does not want to answer the question put before her

As a woman are you equal in the eyes of the founding fathers based on words placed in the constitution that I have previously eluded to ?????

besides I did not mention any mistake but instead it is your intention
to make make stuff up to justify your ability to type

You failed to evolve and are just stuck on the words instead of understanding how to adapt the words to the 21 century and beyond

How could I be wrong when you've admitted that my premise is correct???


This is what I said:

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.

It's right there in the OP.....and you couldn't find a way to deny it.


Instead you claimed it is "implied" power.

Luckily, I forced you to check the meaning of 'implied'.....it means suggested, hinted at, guessed, unspoken, unexpressed.....
Your claim is that the Founders forgot to put in writing that the Supreme Court must be obeyed???????


Now.....which of us is the "someone who hates to admit when they are wrong"???

Must be you, huh?


I have no experience at being wrong, you appear to have a great deal of same.

all you do is quote the constitution

then you apply a meaning

quote "That there was a mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts yada yada" is your meaning and why you are wrong

That above is the issues you are stating that its a mistake

just because its is something that is not mention

yet I quote why

it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

by your logic it is clear the constitution in mentioning men are create equal and does not mention woman who by your logic are not equal

Thus we also know that there was slavery in the US

So when the Constitution say all men are equal yet men are also slaves

Also since woman are NOT created as there is no mention of them using your logic they are not equal thus any argument you submit is incorrect because by the constitution you are not created equal to men

If you interpreter that the constitution is correct and nothing can be implied

How as a woman should we accept anything you says as you your whole point is that the constitution meaning cannot be implied

relax as a man I will interpret it for you

It is implied that you are equal to a man

feel better

you do not answer the one question that puts a huge hole in your argument

you just ignore it as you have no answer

Implied powers is as valid as enumerated powers just because certain actions of any branch is not mention does not mean implied powers is incorrect or a mistake

THAT IS THE POINT

if you say its a mistake then you are making a judgement call well where in the constitution does it say that it is a mistake for any branch of government cannot use implied power

2nd you fail to address why the president and congress have implied powers

Yet you do not say anything

address the above

"....all you do is quote the constitution...."


Exactly.


No other statutes, 'implied guesses,' assumptions, prevarications, ec., count.


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.



Any decisions of the Supreme Court not authorized and tied to the specific language of the Constitution should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Annie

YET THEY DO JUDICIAL REVIEWS

The power of judicial review was established in the 1803 Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison.



They have been doing it for 200 plus years

Thus the purpose is to ensure that the other branches abide by the constitution and they can strike it done if it violates the constitution

I guess the Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment

Chief Justice John Marshall: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

well they are the judicial system, they should know what the law or the constitution means

Loving v. Virginia (1967): State laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down.

wow good thing for judicial review or laws can be written to stop interracial marriages

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 (7-0 decision)

Established the federal government's implied powers over the states.

oh there is that nasty word of implied powers

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision)

Denied citizenship to African American slaves.

oh well do you agree with that one

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 (9-0 decision)

Separating black and white students in public schools is unconstitutional

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 (9-0 decision)

Criminal defendants have a right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.
I guess the government could not deny criminal defendants a lawyer even if they had no money

United States v. Nixon, 1974 (8-0 decision)

President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence from criminal trial.

my favorite, can you imagine a president withholding evidence using executive privilege as a way to obstruct justice even when the president was lying

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I still haven't heard your comment on what the constitution means by that statement and what is implied or explicit in that passage

My happiness depends on your answer

Who's 'Annie'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...USAToday reported that the Federal Judges Association was calling an emergency meeting. Its president, District Judge Cynthia Rufe, said the idea was to address concerns about how Justice officials and the President were intervening in sensitive cases.

That shocked a number of federal judges, and Judge Rufe later tried to play it all down. Not, though, before one of the towering figures on the Second Circuit, Jose Cabranes, fired off to Judge Rufe a now widely circulated email. It expressed concern that the emergency meeting would “purport to speak for the federal judiciary on a pending political question.”

“I urge you to come off this precipice, and to withdraw from active politics in the name of the federal judges of this country,” Judge Cabranes, a longtime member of the FJA, wrote in his brief cable. “If you do not do so, you risk confusing the public about the role of the courts in our constitutional order and thereby deepening the crisis in confidence in our institutions.”

That strikes us as sage advice for all 870 of the judges commissioned under Article III of the Constitution. It may not be easy for a judge to keep his cool in these times. "
The Resistance Starts To Infect Our Courts

 

[sealybobo]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

"...and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere."

You may simply accept what you are told.....but the master that I serve is truth.

You will be able to find no error in any of my posts.

So if one day the Supreme Court says turn in your assault rifles you will do it?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by gun rights advocates to overturn President Donald Trump’s ban on “bump stocks” - devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun - implemented after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

The justices left in place a lower court’s decision that upheld the Trump administration’s action to define bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law.

The ban, which went into effect in March 2019, was embraced by Trump following a massacre that killed 58 people at a music festival in Las Vegas in which the gunman used bump stocks. It represented a rare recent instance of gun control at the federal level in a country that has experienced a series of mass shootings.

So in the future you will accept whatever gun control the Supreme Court dishes out?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

"...and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere."

You may simply accept what you are told.....but the master that I serve is truth.

You will be able to find no error in any of my posts.

So if one day the Supreme Court says turn in your assault rifles you will do it?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by gun rights advocates to overturn President Donald Trump’s ban on “bump stocks” - devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun - implemented after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

The justices left in place a lower court’s decision that upheld the Trump administration’s action to define bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law.

The ban, which went into effect in March 2019, was embraced by Trump following a massacre that killed 58 people at a music festival in Las Vegas in which the gunman used bump stocks. It represented a rare recent instance of gun control at the federal level in a country that has experienced a series of mass shootings.

So in the future you will accept whatever gun control the Supreme Court dishes out?

So if one day the Supreme Court says to wear lipstick and a pink dress, you will do it?

 

[Oddball]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



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. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

They all should be ignored....Each and every one of them...Especially their grossly idiotic tax code.

Ignore the sons-of-bitches and defy them to lock us all up.