The executive branch can nuder the supreme court

[HappyJoy]

Like you guys are now, in this thread? Nah, I have trust in our form of government.

Our form of government is no longer our form of government. Your faith in government just because it's government shows you for a statist tool.

Oh, what changed?

The courts, congress and our executive branch no longer abide by the constitution.

Do you have an example?

And what does you revolution look like? Is it the subverting the American government and committing treason or is it more of the Ron Paul perpetual revolution scam?

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

 

[HappyJoy]

Just a follow up. If Scalia wasn't 'murdered' would we be having this conversation?

 

[koshergrl]

Federal court judges, appointed by the federal government, now are determining the power of the federal government.

Hm. Michael Shane, US District Court of Oregon, has determined that the federal government can own land not covered by the constitution.

He did it as a rider to a jury trial..the JURY didn't rule on this. He determined it on his own.

And he doesn't have the authority to do that. His opinion is unconstitutional and in error, and we are not obligated to abide by it. And we won't.

 

[Wilbur Right]

They frankly could all where Burkas and I wouldn't be too much.

Yea, they could all wear white robes with hoods too.

But they probably won't.


What the hell happened to the spelling on here?

Nuder for neuter. Where for wear.
Is this a new right wing thing?

 

[kaz]

If the voters of a state passed a law banning all guns, the Supremes would say the state law is unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is not "legislating from the bench". Such a decision may be "violating the will of the People", but the tyranny of the majority is not allowed to violate our rights.

If a state passed a law requiring you to do 10 jumping jacks before you could vote, with exceptions made for the handicapped, such a law would probably be found to be constitutional even though it does not achieve its stated goal of preventing voter fraud. The constitution does not forbid retards from enacting completely useless laws.

On some rare occasions, Congress will pass a law which is unconstitutional, but which can be modified so that is it constitutional. On those occasions, the Supremes will explain what tweaks should be made to make the law constitutional. If one wanted to be an asshole, one could call this "legislating from the bench", or one could take it for what it is, an expert suggestion. Their way of saying, "We understand what you are trying to achieve, and here is a better and constitutional way to do it."

The problem isn't the Supreme Court striking down Unconstitutional laws, the problem is them not striking down Unconstitutional laws.

As for legislating from the bench, three examples

- Roe V. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution, they just made up a Constitutional right
- Gay marriage. Gays had access to marriage equally with straights. If you don't think that's fair, that's fine. The Constitutional way to change it was through the legislature
- Obamacare. OK, the penalty being an income tax while being a stretch can be defended. That healthcare exchanges and mandating the coverage we need is a tax is ridiculous. And Obamacare was written so that if any party of the law was struck down, the bill was null and void.

None of those are the scenario you addressed as legislating from the bench. These three are pure legislating from the bench

 

[kaz]

Our form of government is no longer our form of government. Your faith in government just because it's government shows you for a statist tool.

Oh, what changed?

The courts, congress and our executive branch no longer abide by the constitution.

Do you have an example?

And what does you revolution look like? Is it the subverting the American government and committing treason or is it more of the Ron Paul perpetual revolution scam?

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

 

[HappyJoy]

Oh, what changed?

The courts, congress and our executive branch no longer abide by the constitution.

Do you have an example?

And what does you revolution look like? Is it the subverting the American government and committing treason or is it more of the Ron Paul perpetual revolution scam?

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

 

[koshergrl]

When it happens, they need to be held accountable. They can be removed from office and their bad ruling vacated.

 

[koshergrl]

What happens is people at the local level just outright refuse to comply. It's happening more and more.

 

[HappyJoy]

When it happens, they need to be held accountable. They can be removed from office and their bad ruling vacated.

Who decides what is Constitutional and how is one removed? Do you follow the Constitutional process of impeachment or something else? And when Congress refuses to impeach, then what?

 

[g5000]

If the voters of a state passed a law banning all guns, the Supremes would say the state law is unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is not "legislating from the bench". Such a decision may be "violating the will of the People", but the tyranny of the majority is not allowed to violate our rights.

If a state passed a law requiring you to do 10 jumping jacks before you could vote, with exceptions made for the handicapped, such a law would probably be found to be constitutional even though it does not achieve its stated goal of preventing voter fraud. The constitution does not forbid retards from enacting completely useless laws.

On some rare occasions, Congress will pass a law which is unconstitutional, but which can be modified so that is it constitutional. On those occasions, the Supremes will explain what tweaks should be made to make the law constitutional. If one wanted to be an asshole, one could call this "legislating from the bench", or one could take it for what it is, an expert suggestion. Their way of saying, "We understand what you are trying to achieve, and here is a better and constitutional way to do it."

The problem isn't the Supreme Court striking down Unconstitutional laws, the problem is them not striking down Unconstitutional laws.

As for legislating from the bench, three examples

- Roe V. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution, they just made up a Constitutional right
- Gay marriage. Gays had access to marriage equally with straights. If you don't think that's fair, that's fine. The Constitutional way to change it was through the legislature
- Obamacare. OK, the penalty being an income tax while being a stretch can be defended. That healthcare exchanges and mandating the coverage we need is a tax is ridiculous. And Obamacare was written so that if any party of the law was struck down, the bill was null and void.

None of those are the scenario you addressed as legislating from the bench. These three are pure legislating from the bench

Gays never had access to marriage equality. You'd have to be on crack to think so. If they had, they would have been getting married long ago and collecting all the same state and federal cash and prizes. They had a right to equal protection of the laws granting all those cash and prizes, and they were denied that right.


As for ObamaCare, I am with you on the mandate. However, Obamacare was not written so that if any part was struck down the bill was null and void. It was FINANCED in such a way that if the mandate was struck down, it would have been too expensive. The mandate could have been struck down, and Obamacare would have been still the law of the land. It just would not have been "budget neutral".

 

[koshergrl]

When it happens, they need to be held accountable. They can be removed from office and their bad ruling vacated.

Who decides what is Constitutional and how is one removed? Do you follow the Constitutional process of impeachment or something else? And when Congress refuses to impeach, then what?

Good question. When the three branches collude together to subvert the constitution..what are we left with?

The Constitution tells us.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The executive branch can nuder the supreme court

You want them to be nude??

Gross.....

 

[HappyJoy]

When it happens, they need to be held accountable. They can be removed from office and their bad ruling vacated.

Who decides what is Constitutional and how is one removed? Do you follow the Constitutional process of impeachment or something else? And when Congress refuses to impeach, then what?

Good question. When the three branches collude together to subvert the constitution..what are we left with?

The Constitution tells us.

Explain, how that has happened. Give some detail, it's a heavy subject. What does the Constitution say?

 

[Pogo]

The executive branch can nuder the supreme court

You want them to be nude??

Gross.....

I think he means, given a game of strip poker, the executive branch, no pun intended, can take off more clothes than the Supremes.

Which is true, since the Supremes have to wear those robes.

Although truth to tell I wouldn't mind seeing Mary Wilson..... ah never mind.

 

[kaz]

The courts, congress and our executive branch no longer abide by the constitution.

Do you have an example?

And what does you revolution look like? Is it the subverting the American government and committing treason or is it more of the Ron Paul perpetual revolution scam?

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

 

[HappyJoy]

Do you have an example?

And what does you revolution look like? Is it the subverting the American government and committing treason or is it more of the Ron Paul perpetual revolution scam?

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

Ok, they didn't, or at least they didn't according to you. So, what exactly should be done?

 

[Syriusly]

Federal court judges, appointed by the federal government, now are determining the power of the federal government.

Hm. Michael Shane, US District Court of Oregon, has determined that the federal government can own land not covered by the constitution.

He did it as a rider to a jury trial..the JURY didn't rule on this. He determined it on his own.

And he doesn't have the authority to do that. His opinion is unconstitutional and in error, and we are not obligated to abide by it. And we won't.

I look forward to your upcoming arrest and trial.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you have an example?

And what does you revolution look like? Is it the subverting the American government and committing treason or is it more of the Ron Paul perpetual revolution scam?

I gave you a list

I wasn't responding to you and to be quite fair I probably blew off your list. If you want to provide it again then yippie.

This is post #61 and it was post #56, seriously, you couldn't find it, puddles?

Oh, your list of grievances. Yeah, I read that and you didn't provide any substance, it was just a list.

Do you expect the court to get it right 100% of the time? What is the threshold? Do they have to get it right by you all the time? 90%, 80%?

And, when you reply with whatever answer, what specifically are your next steps? Granted, whatever you want the President or Congress to do, they won't. So, where do you go from here?

Those were all straight forward Constitutional issues, they should have gotten all of them right

No matter how they ruled there would be Americans who said that they didn't rule 'right'.

 

[Syriusly]

When it happens, they need to be held accountable. They can be removed from office and their bad ruling vacated.

That is what the impeachment process allows.

Get cracking on that.