Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And Mob Rule ends things well before that, which is why the Founders both feared and hated it.Edward Gibbon, `The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire':
"... the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny."
Not true.Edward Gibbon, `The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire':
"... the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny."
They never were their only rulers here, nor was it ever intended that they would be, by design. Hell, most Founders didn't even want a House of Representatives, that was a bone for the cannon fodder that fought the Revolution."If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
--Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
And yet, it works very well while the Senate can't pass a schoolgirl's note...Chief Justice Marlin T. Phelps, Arizona supreme Court:
"Nothing was further from the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, than that the supreme Court should ever make the Supreme Law of the Land."
He was pissy about Dred Scott, nothing more. Now Andrew Jackson really hated the court."If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
--Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
Not true.Chief Justice Marlin T. Phelps, Arizona supreme Court:
"Nothing was further from the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, than that the supreme Court should ever make the Supreme Law of the Land."
Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.
That.No, that's what they are now.No they are legislations from the bench.Ignorant nonsense.
Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.
That's what they are when you don't like them.
Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.
The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.
Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.
The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.
Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.
The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.
Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.
The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.
Really? I realize you are talking about the catch all 14th amendment but even that is hardly the case when marriage was always afforded to all as traditionally defined. What the SCOTUS had to do is change both tradition, which is impossible to do, and the definition of marriage which is what they did do. None of which is under the COTUS.
How ridiculous the SCOTUS is the law of the land, the almighty arbitrator of right and wrong. They write law. The democrats were fully in line with the excellent Dred Scott decision and they are in love with the Citizens United decision.[/QUOT
You do realize, don't you, that the law that the Supreme Court struck down in Citizens United was written and introduced by democrats and was supported mostly by democrats? No, did not think you did.
Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.
The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.
Really? I realize you are talking about the catch all 14th amendment but even that is hardly the case when marriage was always afforded to all as traditionally defined. What the SCOTUS had to do is change both tradition, which is impossible to do, and the definition of marriage which is what they did do. None of which is under the COTUS.
How ridiculous the SCOTUS is the law of the land, the almighty arbitrator of right and wrong. They write law. The democrats were fully in line with the excellent Dred Scott decision and they are in love with the Citizens United decision.[/QUOT
You do realize, don't you, that the law that the Supreme Court struck down in Citizens United was written and introduced by democrats and was supported mostly by democrats? No, did not think you did.
No, the Supreme Court was asked by the parties to the law suit, American citizens and the states in which they live, to resolve a dispute that arose. The Supreme Court did not initiate the matter, the parties did. They then applied the actual words of the constitution to the issue before them which was whether a law that banned gay people from access to the legal institution of marriage violated the constitution. They found, correctly, that it did. Perhaps you can explain to us how it is not a denial of the right to liberty protected by the 14th Amendment to deny two adult, American citizens the right to marry one another. Explain how the government should be allowed to deny that couple the same liberty you have to marry who you want. And explain how a law that treats two groups of people differently without any valid reason for doing so does not result in an unequal application of the law. Now, I understand from your posts that these ideas are well over your head, but give it a shot. And, unless you answer the specific questions, don't bother responding.Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."
Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.
The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.
Really? I realize you are talking about the catch all 14th amendment but even that is hardly the case when marriage was always afforded to all as traditionally defined. What the SCOTUS had to do is change both tradition, which is impossible to do, and the definition of marriage which is what they did do. None of which is under the COTUS.
