The Most Unconstitutional Administration

[PoliticalChic]

Current version of Democrat corruption:

"Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. .... many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The president's taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology.



... Montesquieu observed: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." America's Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

[The] rule of law means that we are a nationruled by laws, not men. That no one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Ted Cruz: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama




"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." "Common Sense," Thomas Paine.




Democrats seem to have a penchant for electing lawless, corrupt individuals lacking both character and a moral compass.

Obama, of course....but Clinton and Roosevelt come to mind.


When America's epitaph is written, due notice will be given to the voters who killed her.

 

[hazlnut]

1. How many lies and fabrications did one have to swallow to vote for him in '08? Beyond the missing vetting that candidates of other parties have to contend with, the 'media' ignored all sorts of red flags, such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright....or, at least, smoothed the bumps in that road.


But to suggest a love of America and the Constitution....with this sort of pretense: "Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when hesaid, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."




Hillary Clinton’s earlier campaign picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
"Singer (March 27):Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response."
Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?



Wow! Has that come back to bit all of us!



2. "One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse. Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document.

3. ...he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him.... the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, ...explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

4. ....hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations....

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps.The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. .... changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself."
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Your little fringe rants are irrelevant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. How many lies and fabrications did one have to swallow to vote for him in '08? Beyond the missing vetting that candidates of other parties have to contend with, the 'media' ignored all sorts of red flags, such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright....or, at least, smoothed the bumps in that road.


But to suggest a love of America and the Constitution....with this sort of pretense: "Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when hesaid, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."




Hillary Clinton’s earlier campaign picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
"Singer (March 27):Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response."
Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?



Wow! Has that come back to bit all of us!



2. "One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse. Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document.

3. ...he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him.... the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, ...explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

4. ....hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations....

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps.The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. .... changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself."
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Your little fringe rants are irrelevant.

So....you still wanna buy Dred Scott, huh?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

 

[playtime]

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

Um... No. it doesn't.

You are free to delude yourself through the idiotic assumptions of others suffering the same delusion. But you are every bit as dead ass wrong as they are.

Now ask me why... .

 

[playtime]

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

Um... No. it doesn't.

You are free to delude yourself through the idiotic assumptions of others suffering the same delusion. But you are every bit as dead ass wrong as they are.

Now ask me why... .

Ok, this should be good. 'Why'? Unless you were going to say big corp. has them all in their back pockets, then I'll agree with you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

Um... No. it doesn't.

You are free to delude yourself through the idiotic assumptions of others suffering the same delusion. But you are every bit as dead ass wrong as they are.

Now ask me why... .

Ok, this should be good. 'Why'?

Because the US Constitution is written in plain english... with no ambiguity. It is a charter of law which exists solely to sustain the charter of principles declared at the founding of the nation.

It requires no interpretation, as there is nothing to interpret.

When you allow others to tell you what the constitution says, you set aside your own responsibility to KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS... and in so doing you forfeit your right to live within the broad freedom it provides for the individual through the stark limitations it sets upon the power of government.

That's why... .

 

[playtime]

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

Um... No. it doesn't.

You are free to delude yourself through the idiotic assumptions of others suffering the same delusion. But you are every bit as dead ass wrong as they are.

Now ask me why... .

Ok, this should be good. 'Why'?

Because the US Constitution is written in plain english... with no ambiguity. It is a charter of law which exists solely to sustain the charter of principles declared at the founding of the nation.

It requires no interpretation, as there is nothing to interpret.

When you allow others to tell you what the constitution says, you set aside your own responsibility to KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS... and in so doing you forfeit your right to live within the broad freedom it provides for the individual through the stark limitations it sets upon the power of government.

That's why... .

Constitution of the United States, Article III

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

History of the Federal Judiciary

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

Um... No. it doesn't.

You are free to delude yourself through the idiotic assumptions of others suffering the same delusion. But you are every bit as dead ass wrong as they are.

Now ask me why... .

Ok, this should be good. 'Why'?

Because the US Constitution is written in plain english... with no ambiguity. It is a charter of law which exists solely to sustain the charter of principles declared at the founding of the nation.

It requires no interpretation, as there is nothing to interpret.

When you allow others to tell you what the constitution says, you set aside your own responsibility to KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS... and in so doing you forfeit your right to live within the broad freedom it provides for the individual through the stark limitations it sets upon the power of government.

That's why... .

Constitution of the United States, Article III

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

History of the Federal Judiciary

Yes...

But show me in there where it says that the Judiciary shall have the power to re-write the Constitution through absurd 'interpretations'?

(Let me save ya some time... it doesn't.)

Here's a clue: There is no potential for a right to murder one's pre-born child. There is no potential for a right to marry, beyond the scope of the natural laws which otherwise define marriage. There is no potential right to own another human being. There is no potential for freedom, where the Government is endowed with unlimited power to tax, to preclude the free exercise of one's religion, or the right to speak publicly.

The US Federal Judiciary has 'found' such rights in the US Constitution..., where there is no potential for such to be found. Meaning that they just made it up. Meaning that they effectively revised the Constitution. Meaning that they have adopted power, which the US Constitution does not give them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No sane individual is suggesting that the "Judiciary shall have the power to re-write the Constitution through absurd 'interpretations'" The 'self-evident truth' is that you, keys, do not understand the Constitution at all, as you look through your prism of strange religious beliefs.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Ronald Reagan's administration would have to be the most unconstitutional and corrupt administration ever. He's in a criminal class of his own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. How many lies and fabrications did one have to swallow to vote for him in '08? Beyond the missing vetting that candidates of other parties have to contend with, the 'media' ignored all sorts of red flags, such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright....or, at least, smoothed the bumps in that road.


But to suggest a love of America and the Constitution....with this sort of pretense: "Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when hesaid, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."




Hillary Clinton’s earlier campaign picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
"Singer (March 27):Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response."
Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?



Wow! Has that come back to bit all of us!



2. "One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse. Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document.

3. ...he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him.... the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, ...explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

4. ....hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations....

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps.The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. .... changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself."
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.


Seriously...

The author of this thread is arguing that it is unconstitutional to make a losing argument in front of the Supreme Court.

No... Gilligan. No one is saying that, but you. But, in fairness... you're an idiot.

That is EXACTLY what was said, the OP posted it as her opinion.

One would be led to believe that you don't know the meaning of EXCACTLY....as I never said any such thing.

But, of course the basis of your post is the usual....you lie about everything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

" This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility blah blah blah....."


That's false.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ronald Reagan's administration would have to be the most unconstitutional and corrupt administration ever. He's in a criminal class of his own.

Not even close.....

"47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House."
THE CLINTON LEGACY


Democrats voted for this rapist and racist twice.

That's even worse than the double vote for the incompetent anti-American in the White House currently.

 

[Freewill]

1. How many lies and fabrications did one have to swallow to vote for him in '08? Beyond the missing vetting that candidates of other parties have to contend with, the 'media' ignored all sorts of red flags, such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright....or, at least, smoothed the bumps in that road.


But to suggest a love of America and the Constitution....with this sort of pretense: "Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when hesaid, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."




Hillary Clinton’s earlier campaign picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
"Singer (March 27):Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response."
Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?



Wow! Has that come back to bit all of us!



2. "One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse. Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document.

3. ...he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him.... the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, ...explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

4. ....hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations....

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps.The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. .... changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself."
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.


Seriously...

The author of this thread is arguing that it is unconstitutional to make a losing argument in front of the Supreme Court.

Actually I think the argument is it is more like a person saying they understand the reason for a speed limit then they go out and break the speed limit. Obama claims to be a constitutional professor yet tries to circumvent the very document.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.

Ummm, ya... it certainly does.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Who did you think had that job?

Um... No. it doesn't.

You are free to delude yourself through the idiotic assumptions of others suffering the same delusion. But you are every bit as dead ass wrong as they are.

Now ask me why... .

Ok, this should be good. 'Why'?

Because the US Constitution is written in plain english... with no ambiguity. It is a charter of law which exists solely to sustain the charter of principles declared at the founding of the nation.

It requires no interpretation, as there is nothing to interpret.

When you allow others to tell you what the constitution says, you set aside your own responsibility to KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS... and in so doing you forfeit your right to live within the broad freedom it provides for the individual through the stark limitations it sets upon the power of government.

That's why... .

Constitution of the United States, Article III

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

History of the Federal Judiciary

Bogus.
The Supreme Court has stolen powers it was never authorized to have, nor deserved.

1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

2. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

3. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).

a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

4.This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense:this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.


John Marshall, as is true of most modern judges, expressed his hostility toward limitations of federal power.



And, living under a cloak of stupidity, far too many folks imagine the the clear language of a law is unintelligible until some anointed one in a black robe tells them what is says.





6.Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.


7. Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes) This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government. "He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." Gutzman, Op. Cit.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama is the second greatest loser.

You're the first.

History books are going to be very kind to Obama. Your grandkids will probably go to a school named after the guy.

 

[Camp]

Ronald Reagan's administration would have to be the most unconstitutional and corrupt administration ever. He's in a criminal class of his own.

Not even close.....

"47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House."
THE CLINTON LEGACY


Democrats voted for this rapist and racist twice.

That's even worse than the double vote for the incompetent anti-American in the White House currently.

More than close. The number for Reagan is 138. Unlike your link with no way to check sources or who these so called associated are and how they are connected to the Clinton's, the many sources found on the net for the Reagan criminals are easy to look up and research. It should also be noted that a key difference is the Clinton list strays away from the WH administration and appears to include eight years of a governorship. The unknown creator of the list admits this, meaning your numbers do not represent the administration, but rather a lifetime of "associations".
Your source is a typical PoliticalChic source that has no credibility.
These sources, the ones below can be further researched and the facts proven beyond doubt. 138 cases confirmed vs 47 maybe, iffy, could be, speculative and perhaps pure bullshit misrepresentations.

www.liveleak.com/view?i=b89_1391811649

sodahead.com/united-states/the-great-president-ronald-reagan-pt1/question-3331695/

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama is the second greatest loser.

You're the first.

History books are going to be very kind to Obama. Your grandkids will probably go to a school named after the guy.

Liberals own the school system.....all you need to know about these dolts is that they name schools after folks like..

"..John Dewey High School,Norman Thomas High School, Fiorello La Guardia High School and Frances Perkins Academy in New York City; Thurgood Marshall High Schools in San Francisco, Dayton, Ohio, and Missouri City, Texas; Paul Robeson Elementary School in Trenton and Robeson high schools in New York and Chicago, Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt, Md.; Langston Hughes High School in Fairburn, Ga.; Walter Reuther High School in Kenosha, Wis.; William J. Brennan High School in San Antonio, Texas;A. Philip Randolph Elementary School in Atlanta; Floyd Olson Middle School in Minneapolis, Minn.; Fannie Lou Hamer Middle School in the Bronx, N.Y.; the Paul and Sheila Wellstone School in St. Paul, Minn.; the (private) Ella Baker School in New York, the high schools named for W. E. B. Du Bois in Milwaukee, Wis., Baltimore, Md., and Wake Forest, N.C.; the schools named for Louis Brandeis in New York City and San Antonio, and for Rachel Carson in New York City and Beaverton, Ore.; know much (if anything) about the lives and accomplishments of these towering progressive figures?"
Saul Alinsky Elementary School? How We Honor America's Radicals and Reformers


"....towering progressive figures?"

So....that proves.....what?

Lack of judgment.....after all, Liberals elect things like Obama and Clinton.