Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.

No, they are not.

Oh, no?
How did they do it then?

They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No, they are not.

Oh, no?
How did they do it then?

They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.

Over 200 years ago.
Fairly significant precedent.

 

[Boss]

Oh, no?
How did they do it then?

They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.

Over 200 years ago.
Fairly significant precedent.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.

Now we've determined it was a precedent established and not an empowerment by the Constitution. Thank you.

 

[holston]

By "free exercise of religion" and
"equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed"
whatever people's beliefs are should be included under the 1st and 14th Amendment.

If someone uses the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Bible
Federalist writings etc. to explain what their beliefs are, that is up to that person.

If we only counted Christianity/the Bible or "established religions" as protected, then we would be guilty of discriminating against people whose beliefs draw from other resources.

So out of respect for people's beliefs, does it really matter what resources they cite?
Shouldn't all people's beliefs be treated with equal respect and inclusion?

What you people are persistent about overlooking is the fact that Freedom of Religion is already under assault in the US, Christian denominations in particular, and also the fact that a legal precedent has already been set which WILL censor religions other than Judaism.

Now the Government Can Legally Kill Christians

Bill Dannemeyer
U.S. Congressman, 1979-1992



Your U.S. government can now legally kill Christians for the “crime” of worshipping Jesus Christ! A diabolic deception has been perpetrated on the American people by their OWN leaders, Senators and Congressmen, who have sold their soul to the devil. On March 5, 1991, in the House of Representatives, and March 7, 1991, in the U.S. Senate, without any knowledge of, or input by, the people of the United States, U.S. Senators and Congressmen passed a law that is so outrageous – and frankly unconstitutional – that it forces the American people to be bound by a set of monstrous rules, called the Noahide Laws, rules that make the belief in Jesus Christ a crime punishable by decapitation by guillotine! On March 20, 1991, President George H.W. Bush, a supposed Christian, signed the bill into law.

Before you respond, “NO, that cannot be – not in our free country!” let me explain.

The passage of this law, HJ Res. 104, is especially troublesome to me because I was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives at the time it was passed. Even worse, I was in the House Chamber the very day that is was passed, voting on other legislation. Yet I, as a U.S. Congressman, had NO KNOWLEDGE that it had been passed or even that it was to be brought up for a vote.

How could this be? How could the deception be so pervasive that those of us who had sworn to uphold our country’s Constitution, particularly those of us (few, indeed) who really took our position seriously as the protectors of the people, could be totally in the dark regarding the content of this bill and its passage by the leaders of this country – by treachery and deceit?

Those who are interested can click on the link and read the CONGRESSMAN'S explanation.

If the words of a Congressman WHO WAS THERE don't carry enough weight for you, there are plenty of other links which may be found written from the viewpoint of a variety of sources which verify the above is true.
Those include a few written by Jews and proponents of Noahidism themselves who try to gloss the affair over and depict it as harmless by the equivocal use of words and ambiguity.

The bottom line here, is that where "Jews" and all their boot lickers have made the first move towards the eradication of
Freedom of Religion.
It is also a FACT that ALL religions are NOT equal anymore than they are all harmless. The Jews are forced to admit this themselves with regard to Islam. What they WON'T admit is the insidious, Pharisaic, Machiavellian nature of Talmudic Judaism.

The "end times" according to the Jewish religion call for GLOBAL RULE by JEWS.

Don't believe me? Look it up. I will continue posting the evidence as long as the Hasbara continue covering it up until every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the US is fully aware of what I am saying.
In the meantime the Jews can continue to slither out of it and all the Putzes who would trust their liberty and lives entirely in the hands of Zionist Jewish Supremacists and power mad, money lusting megalomaniacs can continue to swallow their lies.


The little US emblem and all the talk pretense of defending Christianity is a nice dodge but it won't work. The actions of the Jewish Union, despite their manifold attempts to conceal them, speak far louder than their words.

 

[thebrucebeat]

By "free exercise of religion" and
"equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed"
whatever people's beliefs are should be included under the 1st and 14th Amendment.

If someone uses the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Bible
Federalist writings etc. to explain what their beliefs are, that is up to that person.

If we only counted Christianity/the Bible or "established religions" as protected, then we would be guilty of discriminating against people whose beliefs draw from other resources.

So out of respect for people's beliefs, does it really matter what resources they cite?
Shouldn't all people's beliefs be treated with equal respect and inclusion?

What you people are persistent about overlooking is the fact that Freedom of Religion is already under assault in the US, Christian denominations in particular, and also the fact that a legal precedent has already been set which WILL censor religions other than Judaism.

Now the Government Can Legally Kill Christians

Bill Dannemeyer
U.S. Congressman, 1979-1992



Your U.S. government can now legally kill Christians for the “crime” of worshipping Jesus Christ! A diabolic deception has been perpetrated on the American people by their OWN leaders, Senators and Congressmen, who have sold their soul to the devil. On March 5, 1991, in the House of Representatives, and March 7, 1991, in the U.S. Senate, without any knowledge of, or input by, the people of the United States, U.S. Senators and Congressmen passed a law that is so outrageous – and frankly unconstitutional – that it forces the American people to be bound by a set of monstrous rules, called the Noahide Laws, rules that make the belief in Jesus Christ a crime punishable by decapitation by guillotine! On March 20, 1991, President George H.W. Bush, a supposed Christian, signed the bill into law.

Before you respond, “NO, that cannot be – not in our free country!” let me explain.

The passage of this law, HJ Res. 104, is especially troublesome to me because I was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives at the time it was passed. Even worse, I was in the House Chamber the very day that is was passed, voting on other legislation. Yet I, as a U.S. Congressman, had NO KNOWLEDGE that it had been passed or even that it was to be brought up for a vote.

How could this be? How could the deception be so pervasive that those of us who had sworn to uphold our country’s Constitution, particularly those of us (few, indeed) who really took our position seriously as the protectors of the people, could be totally in the dark regarding the content of this bill and its passage by the leaders of this country – by treachery and deceit?

Those who are interested can click on the link and read the CONGRESSMAN'S explanation.

If the words of a Congressman WHO WAS THERE don't carry enough weight for you, there are plenty of other links which may be found written from the viewpoint of a variety of sources which verify the above is true.
Those include a few written by Jews and proponents of Noahidism themselves who try to gloss the affair over and depict it as harmless by the equivocal use of words and ambiguity.

The bottom line here, is that where "Jews" and all their boot lickers have made the first move towards the eradication of
Freedom of Religion.
It is also a FACT that ALL religions are NOT equal anymore than they are all harmless. The Jews are forced to admit this themselves with regard to Islam. What they WON'T admit is the insidious, Pharisaic, Machiavellian nature of Talmudic Judaism.

The "end times" according to the Jewish religion call for GLOBAL RULE by JEWS.

Don't believe me? Look it up. I will continue posting the evidence as long as the Hasbara continue covering it up until every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the US is fully aware of what I am saying.
In the meantime the Jews can continue to slither out of it and all the Putzes who would trust their liberty and lives entirely in the hands of Zionist Jewish Supremacists and power mad, money lusting megalomaniacs can continue to swallow their lies.


The little US emblem and all the talk pretense of defending Christianity is a nice dodge but it won't work. The actions of the Jewish Union, despite their manifold attempts to conceal them, speak far louder than their words.

I read it all, including the citation.
Both you and the congressman are clinically insane.

 

[thebrucebeat]

They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.

Over 200 years ago.
Fairly significant precedent.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.

Now we've determined it was a precedent established and not an empowerment by the Constitution. Thank you.

By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
Got it.

 

[Boss]

By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
Got it.

Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!

 

[thebrucebeat]

By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
Got it.

Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!

No you don't.
You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
This one makes you look incapable of reading.

 

[Boss]

RE: holston's Noahide Laws resolution allowing the gov't to kill Christians for worshiping Jesus and whatnot:

Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Not a word in there about killing Christians for worshiping Jesus. Sorry!

 

[Boss]

By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
Got it.

Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!

No you don't.
You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
This one makes you look incapable of reading.

My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!

 

[thebrucebeat]

Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!

No you don't.
You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
This one makes you look incapable of reading.

My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!

If that makes you feel better.

 

[BreezeWood]

Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!

No you don't.
You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
This one makes you look incapable of reading.

My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!

Boss, are you at all familiar with the Continental Congress "Articles of Confederation" ?

- that may be the bastion for reactionary right wing philosophy, but the proof of its failure is the document that replaced it, the US Constitution - you have a long treck to go back to where you want to be. thankfully it is not going to happen ...

the Federalist Papers were nothing but a ruse in the process of ratifying the new Liberal Theocracy - to replaced the past failure and its ardent admirers.

.

 

[Boss]

No you don't.
You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
This one makes you look incapable of reading.

My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!

Boss, are you at all familiar with the Continental Congress "Articles of Confederation" ?

- that may be the bastion for reactionary right wing philosophy, but the proof of its failure is the document that replaced it, the US Constitution - you have a long treck to go back to where you want to be. thankfully it is not going to happen ...

the Federalist Papers were nothing but a ruse in the process of ratifying the new Liberal Theocracy - to replaced the past failure and its ardent admirers.

I'm very familiar with the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers... we don't hear much about them, but they did exist. And I suppose it's fair to point out not everyone agreed we should be a Federal republic, there were those who wanted us to be the Non-united States of America. But the FP were the establishing arguments, they include many of the Anti-federalist arguments juxtaposed with their Federalist response. In fact, the Bill of Rights was a major compromise to the Anti-Federalist argument and the Federalists would have likely failed without them.

Now, the Bill of Rights were supposed to be a set of amendments which stood alone as unbreachable and unassailable by government or any court appointed by government. Yet, no sooner than the ink was dry and the Constitution ratified, they began doing just that. Nowadays, we think nothing in the world of it, we have morons like brucey believing this is empowered unto the court in the Constitution, when it certainly wasn't. The SCOTUS was established with very limited power to rule judiciously on matters where our constitutional rights collided. Does your right to liberty supercede my right to property... that sort of thing. But since Marbury, the SCOTUS has established an unconstitutional right to "interpret" the meaning of various aspects of the Constitution and it has only gotten worse with the passage of time.

 

[thebrucebeat]

My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!

Boss, are you at all familiar with the Continental Congress "Articles of Confederation" ?

- that may be the bastion for reactionary right wing philosophy, but the proof of its failure is the document that replaced it, the US Constitution - you have a long treck to go back to where you want to be. thankfully it is not going to happen ...

the Federalist Papers were nothing but a ruse in the process of ratifying the new Liberal Theocracy - to replaced the past failure and its ardent admirers.

I'm very familiar with the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers... we don't hear much about them, but they did exist. And I suppose it's fair to point out not everyone agreed we should be a Federal republic, there were those who wanted us to be the Non-united States of America. But the FP were the establishing arguments, they include many of the Anti-federalist arguments juxtaposed with their Federalist response. In fact, the Bill of Rights was a major compromise to the Anti-Federalist argument and the Federalists would have likely failed without them.

Now, the Bill of Rights were supposed to be a set of amendments which stood alone as unbreachable and unassailable by government or any court appointed by government. Yet, no sooner than the ink was dry and the Constitution ratified, they began doing just that. Nowadays, we think nothing in the world of it, we have morons like brucey believing this is empowered unto the court in the Constitution, when it certainly wasn't. The SCOTUS was established with very limited power to rule judiciously on matters where our constitutional rights collided. Does your right to liberty supercede my right to property... that sort of thing. But since Marbury, the SCOTUS has established an unconstitutional right to "interpret" the meaning of various aspects of the Constitution and it has only gotten worse with the passage of time.

I selected a scholastic site to explain this so it was at a level you can understand.
The Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

Here's another.
Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Supreme Court of the United States (first abbreviated as SCOTUS in 1879)[1] was established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789 as the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction."

 

[Boss]

Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument!

First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says:

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.

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.

So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Hamilton continues. . .

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality.

We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers EVER intended.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument!

First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says:

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.

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.

So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Hamilton continues. . .

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality.

We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers EVER intended.

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

 

[thanatos144]

Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument!

First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says:

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.

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.

So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Hamilton continues. . .

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality.

We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers EVER intended.

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

They didn't hate Christians like you do.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument!

First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says:

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.

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.

So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Hamilton continues. . .

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality.

We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers EVER intended.

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

They didn't hate Christians like you do.

It's probably best for you not to try to actually engage in the conversation, like you have chosen not to here.
You are outgunned

 

[Boss]

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.

In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.

Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.

 

[MaryL]

God is a big tease. Who can say. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, diseases, pointless wars over the centuries. for what? God already knows how this will end...Or maybe not. Are we waiting for Godot? For Nothing? Please.