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.
No, foxfyre, you are misrepresenting what you said now: that is a deliberate fabrication (a lie). TM has corrected you. Now please admit you were caught in your deception, and let's all move on.
You did not identify my changed post as a change that you did. You did it in a dishonest and unethical way.Nope people on here do it all the time, No one thought you wrote that and you know it
I know what 'decided law' means and it can apply in the lowest to the highest court. And there is no such thing as 'decided' law that is final as any law can be changed even if it requires a Constitutional amendment to do it.It is what the SCOTUS is for
Now then, if you have no argument smarter than pretending the Supreme Court is God and/or I am not allowed to have opinions, please find something else to do.
They are the final arbitors of the laws of this land being in line with the constitution.
Its decided law.
You can pretend you can overturn these decisions but you are just fooling yourself.
How about I pretend that I know what I'm talking about, you are misrepresenting what I have said as well as being unethical in the process, and you apparently don't have a clue?
Do have a good day.
This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent. But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong. We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent. But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong. We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
I think that is a very fair answer.
However, I do not believe it is politically possible. As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare. That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent. But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong. We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
I think that is a very fair answer.
However, I do not believe it is politically possible. As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare. That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
How's this
Cut out medicare and medicaid
Let persons already participating opt out of SS to retirement invest on their own
Allow no new persons into SS
Cut out the federal department of education and anything else on the federal level for education
But on VA benefits and other such employment benefits to soldiers who are indeed federal employees, I would not support that
I am not a member of the Tea Party... but I agree with a good amount of the ideas supported by them... though I find to many mixed messages coming from many of the supporters/members
This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them. A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent. But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong. We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
I think that is a very fair answer.
However, I do not believe it is politically possible. As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare. That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
Toro, it would be interesting to see a poll on opinions regarding SSI, something along the lines of, 'do you agree that people over the age of 55 should receive back the money they've put into SSI over time, but once that level is reached, means testing will be applied.' I think many would be surprised, especially if it included phased in reductions of SSI for the young-even if it meant not receiving back what was confiscated.
They are the final arbitors of the laws of this land being in line with the constitution.
Its decided law.
You can pretend you can overturn these decisions but you are just fooling yourself.
How about I pretend that I know what I'm talking about, you are misrepresenting what I have said as well as being unethical in the process, and you apparently don't have a clue?
Do have a good day.
No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
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.
...
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
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.
I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
Those are changes that would work Toro and maybe someday we iwll have an honest enough congress to effect the changes.
As of yet all we get is posturing for politial gain when it comes on the plate.
All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Contract FROM America
1 Protect the Constitution
2 Reject Cap & Trade
3 Demand a Balanced Budget
4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
6 End Runaway Government Spending
7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
9 Stop the Pork
10 Stop the Tax Hikes
How about I pretend that I know what I'm talking about, you are misrepresenting what I have said as well as being unethical in the process, and you apparently don't have a clue?
Do have a good day.
No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
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.
...
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
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.
I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution. Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress. That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution. But that's only my opinion.
People have been asking folks to tell us how the tweo partys differ from each other all day.
So far no one can do it.
Odd. How can these people speak for the tea party when Xeno has been bitching at me for months that there are no tea party leaders?
The Contract from America initiative was developed within the decentralized tea party and 912 movements. Ryan Hecker, a Houston Tea Party Society activist, developed the concept of creating a grassroots-generated call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies.
About Us
No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
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.
...
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
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.
I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution. Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress. That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution. But that's only my opinion.
Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting
Now, here is something that no one will see me say very often.
Fuck off and die in a ditch, bitch. I haven't forgotten.
Don't be so modest. I've heard you say a lot worse. And what is it you haven't forgotten?? How to act like a decent human being???
Fuck off, you fat assed bitch.
No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
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.
...
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
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.
I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution. Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress. That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution. But that's only my opinion.
Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting
Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.
I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.
You start a thread about what the Tea Party thinks, as a group, and then you ridicule the left with a charge of 'groupthink'?
Very funny. And yes we know you supported Bush. We know who are and who you were in the past.
You really are stupid, aren't you? I started a thread - with a fucking link to the 'contract from America' with a list provided by the TEA Parties. I didn't write the fucking list, you stupid cretin. VaYank made the same stupid mistake. I don't do 'group think'.
And, please do tell.... exactly who do you think I was in the past? This will be very entertaining.
People have been asking folks to tell us how the tweo partys differ from each other all day.
So far no one can do it.
