When Democrats Infest The Judiciary....

[PoliticalChic]

...there is no law above "Democrats Win."



1. While this was what the term used to mean...
law
noun
\ ˈlȯ \
Definition of law
(Entry 1 of 6)

1a(1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see PRESCRIBE sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Definition of LAW



2. The Constitution is presumably the 'law of the land.'
Not since the 32nd President....

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,'p. 65.


3. Contemporaneously with the Trump administration, we have seen pipsqueak Democrat apointees ignore the Constitution to support their cult, their party.
"A federal judge in New York City spiked President Donald Trump’s attempt to block a Manhattan prosecutor from obtaining his tax and financial records ..."
Judge tosses a Trump lawsuit to keep his taxes secret




4. "...President Trump is appealing to the 2nd United States Circuit to try to protect his tax returns. This after a federal district judge ruled that the President’s accountant has to hand over the returns against a subpoena in a penny ante criminal case launched by a Democratic district attorney in Manhattan pursuing a political agenda.

This is the kind of thing President Jefferson was warning against when, in 1807, he opposed trying to subpoena a president. He marked the point in a letter to a lawyer in Virginia, George Hay. “The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, executive and judiciary of each other, and none are more jealous of this than the judiciary.”

“But,” warned the inspiriter of what became the Democratic Party, “would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, & to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south & east to west, and withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties?"
Where's Thomas Jefferson when we need him?






There can be America.....or there can be Democrats in positions of power.


NOT BOTH.

 

[Sunni Man]

Official Democrat party motto: "Party before Country". ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about we keep score as to how many times a judge is reversed by the Supreme Court....


Three strikes and he's out.

Go back to working for the DNC......without a black robe,

 

[Ringtone]

...there is no law above "Democrats Win."



1. While this was what the term used to mean...
law
noun
\ ˈlȯ \
Definition of law
(Entry 1 of 6)

1a(1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see PRESCRIBE sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Definition of LAW



2. The Constitution is presumably the 'law of the land.'
Not since the 32nd President....

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,'p. 65.


3. Contemporaneously with the Trump administration, we have seen pipsqueak Democrat apointees ignore the Constitution to support their cult, their party.
"A federal judge in New York City spiked President Donald Trump’s attempt to block a Manhattan prosecutor from obtaining his tax and financial records ..."
Judge tosses a Trump lawsuit to keep his taxes secret




4. "...President Trump is appealing to the 2nd United States Circuit to try to protect his tax returns. This after a federal district judge ruled that the President’s accountant has to hand over the returns against a subpoena in a penny ante criminal case launched by a Democratic district attorney in Manhattan pursuing a political agenda.

This is the kind of thing President Jefferson was warning against when, in 1807, he opposed trying to subpoena a president. He marked the point in a letter to a lawyer in Virginia, George Hay. “The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, executive and judiciary of each other, and none are more jealous of this than the judiciary.”

“But,” warned the inspiriter of what became the Democratic Party, “would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, & to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south & east to west, and withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties?"
Where's Thomas Jefferson when we need him?






There can be America.....or there can be Democrats in positions of power.


NOT BOTH.

Roberts has certainly shown himself to be a treacherous fool.

 

[Moonglow]

They all have a vested interest in self protection and promotion with a few million thrown in for good measure, don't fool yerself..

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Jefferson’s logic was not that the President is above the law but that the Constitution is the law. He made particular reference to the unique aspect of the presidency. If the “Constitution enjoins on a particular officer to be always engaged in a particular set of duties imposed on him, does not this supersede the general law, subjecting him to minor duties inconsistent with these?”

To Jefferson the president is unique because “the Constitution enjoins his constant agency in the concerns of” the millions of Americans. “Is the law paramount to this, which calls on him on behalf of a single one?”
Where's Thomas Jefferson when we need him?



Imagine the different argument the Democrats would make if the President were of their party.

They still lie and claim that the rapist was impeached over sex.

 

[Thunk]

President Trump has been working on this since day 1.

He's been appointing young conservative judges at a break-neck pace...he even pubically thanked obama for leaving him over 100 judges to appoint

 

[PoliticalChic]

President Trump has been working on this since day 1.

He's been appointing young conservative judges at a break-neck pace...he even pubically thanked obama for leaving him over 100 judges to appoint

It is the only hope for America.

 

[Thunk]

It is the only hope for America.

You're right!

Now we need to do something about liberal school teachers! But "WE" do...that would not be under the presidents jurisdiction.

 

[Ringtone]

President Trump has been working on this since day 1.

He's been appointing young conservative judges at a break-neck pace...he even pubically thanked obama for leaving him over 100 judges to appoint

It is the only hope for America.

We really need at least one more on the Supreme Court. Amy Barrett!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is the only hope for America.

You're right!

Now we need to do something about liberal school teachers! But "WE" do...that would not be under the presidents jurisdiction.

You've hit the nail on the head.

America will never survive if the school system is not wrested from the control of the Left.

Full disclosure: we're a home school family

 

[Ringtone]

You're right!

Now we need to do something about liberal school teachers! But "WE" do...that would not be under the presidents jurisdiction.

Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state

Universal school choice! In the meantime get your kids out of the state schools. My wife and I homeschool our kids.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...the district judge thinks the President ought to be able to accommodate the court. As a final insult, the judge reckons that over-ruling the President is in the “public interest,”...

It’s a remarkable fact that all this is taking place in the shadow of a campaign to impeach the President. We don’t doubt but that the urgency with which the district attorney in New York is pursuing Mr. Trump’s tax returns is animated by the hope that the filings will contain some nugget onto which Speaker Pelosi can glom if her mission in Ukraine fails. Enable the maneuver here and there’ll be no end to it, just as Jefferson warned."
Where's Thomas Jefferson when we need him?

 

[Ringtone]

"...the district judge thinks the President ought to be able to accommodate the court. As a final insult, the judge reckons that over-ruling the President is in the “public interest,”...

It’s a remarkable fact that all this is taking place in the shadow of a campaign to impeach the President. We don’t doubt but that the urgency with which the district attorney in New York is pursuing Mr. Trump’s tax returns is animated by the hope that the filings will contain some nugget onto which Speaker Pelosi can glom if her mission in Ukraine fails. Enable the maneuver here and there’ll be no end to it, just as Jefferson warned."
Where's Thomas Jefferson when we need him?

This article needs to be read by every patriot. Thank you for posting it, PC.

This is the very same insult reckoned by that snake Roberts when he suggested that the executive branch was beholden to explain to the judiciary why the citizenship question should be included in the census, as if it were any of the judiciary's business in the first place.

 

[SavannahMann]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

 

[Ringtone]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

 

[SavannahMann]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Please specify, with the appropriate quote, exactly what you are disagreeing with, or agreeing with.

This is far too general.



But.....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling

Exactly as it should be!



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.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.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

 

[PoliticalChic]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

 

[SavannahMann]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

Interesting how every time someone points out an action is Unconstitutional someone screams that tired and worn out lie. The left shouts it whenever the Second Amendment is brought up. The founders could not imagine modern firearms. And even if they did the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution has a mechanism in place to allow for changing circumstances. It is called an Amendment. If a change is desired, say the abolition of Slavery, or the end of the gender segregation through suffrage. The process is an amendment. Not a redefinition of terms or a worn out old lie.
Because the question is not if the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is what rights will we be left with once we except ourselves into irrelevant peasants serving our lords and masters.