Posted on 03/28/2008 12:15:10 PM PDT by cowboyway
Still having problems making friends, eh swattie? Maybe if you turned that frown upside down they would be your friend. Do you think you could do that swattie?
(I knew you could!)...
I’ve read the Constitution. Perhaps you and your professors have not.
Congress, as the most representative branch, was intended to be supreme under the Constitution, although exercising that power was difficult due to the requirement for super-majorities. However, if Congress were ever unified against either of the other branches, there would be no contest.
The Congress can defund any executive branch initiative and remove from office any officer of the US whenever it chooses.
In many countries, the executive can call early elections, prorogue the legislature or has other means of exercising power in opposition to it.
None of that here. Under the Constitution, the President’s power versus Congress is limited to a relatively easily overridden suspensive veto power.
The power of Congress over the judicial branch is even more direct, as they can both remove from office and limit jurisdiction.
That this is not the way our system has worked in practice does not change the obvious fact that it was intended to work that way.
Since my interpretation is so incorrect, please explain to me the powers that the executive and judicial branches can exercise against the legislative branch in a direct confrontation.
If there’s a club of South-haters around here, I’ve not been invited to the meetings.
free dixie,sw
perhaps you should ask N-S, The Minister of DAMNyankee PROPAGANDA, for your very own "secret squirrel number", secret recognition symbol & "secret handshake" = LOL AT the coven members.
free dixie,sw
I’m unclear what the practical effects would be, but I do know that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court no direct power to overrule a specific act of congress.
Not to say they wouldn’t try to assume such a power, as they have unconstitutionally assumed others. But there is no constitutional justification whatsoever for the Court to even review an impeachment, for example, much less override it. The impeachment power has no limit placed on it other than the good sense and decency of the Congressmen. (And of course their concern about the reaction at the next election.) As with amending the constitution, the executive and judicial branches of government just have no role. (Other than the Chief Justice presiding when the President is tried. And even then he merely presides, he has no vote.)
Please indicate the section of the Constitution that would authorize the Court to do any such thing. The Court rules on cases that make their way up through the system, usually over a number of years. They don’t sit down to review the actions of Congres the previous day. Or at least they aren’t supposed to.
I don't know of anyone on FR who believes ANYTHING you post, period.
Actually, although there isn’t a “south-haters” pinglist, there is a “Dixie” pinglist. Unfortunately if appears to be only for Lost Causers instead of a more useful WBTS list.
No, I take that back. I don’t know that it is only for Lost Causers. I know that many are, but I’ve met and engaged with quite a few who, much like you, simply like the pursuit of history. I actually ran across a fellow who I went to elementary school with when I lived in Alabama.
The truth that makes swattie so uncomfortable is that his is the minority viewpoint (VERY minority!). He will take it to the grave, and it will cause him no end of vexation, but he is a slave to his bias and bigotry.
I understand an interest in history. Obviously I share it.
What I don’t get is the intense identification with a political and military cause that died a well-deserved death 150 years ago. It’s almost like the Muslims who claim they’re upset about the Crusades and getting kicked out of Spain. Or the Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Croats, etc. still excited about who did what to whom in 1682.
I’m very interested in the WBTS, and I tend to think of the Union as being generally on the right side, but I don’t think of them as my football team.
the federal court system has made ITSELF the MOST POWERFUL of the 3 branches of government by judicial fiat.
for example "interstate commerce" has been BADLY abused. as the LIB judges see it, ANYTHING can be in "interstate commerce" & thus a "federal issue"
you might also check out some of the court's decisions on:
1. "right to work",
2. the NRA of the 1930s,
3. labor organizations/the Taft-Hartley Act &
4. other "state & local" issues that were NOT part of the Constitutional mandate of the courts.
free dixie,sw
the TRUTH is that NONE of the members of "the DY coven" are believed by ANYBODY, but themselves.
you DYs are a BAD JOKE to most FReepers, who bother to read your SELF-serving, ignorant, nonsense. (have you noticed that MOST FReepers will NOT post TO "your members"??? there's a reason that they won't.)
free dixie,sw
fyi, i support EQUAL RIGHTS for UNBORN women, too.
free dixie,sw
I agree the Court has overstepped its bounds badly.
Only Congress has the Constitutional authority to cut it down to size.
The 40 year attempt of conservatives to remodel the activist court by putting in “good judges” is doomed to failure. A few men will stick by their principles and do what’s right even at the cost of their own power and prestige.
Most won’t. The Founders knew this. That’s why they built the Constitution so it would work with averagely good or even bad men running it. How many “conservative” judges have now been put in place by “conservative” presidents and promptly began glorying in their unconstitutional power?
The problem is that the Constitutional constraints on all branches have not been applied to rein in unconstitutional power grabs by the Court.
They’re still there, they just aren’t being used, generally because congressmen either like the results of the unconstitutional decisions or because they can avoid public wrath by claiming they can’t do anything about it.
imVho, the 2 other branches of government "wimped out" when they didn't "smartly slap down" that FIRST usurpation of power by the courts. had the POTUS/Congress done that, we would NOT be in the mess we are in!!!
free dixie,sw
He certainly didn’t win any friends on this thread...;’}
It’s a pity how he runs every WBTS thread into the dirt. Oh well, I still get a lot out of them despite the LCL...
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
So...where is the flaw in that logic?
btw, (as none of the other members of "the DY coven of lunatics, nitwits, LEFTISTS & BIGOTS" have not and/or cannot tell me) WHERE in the CONSTITUTION do you find "the right" to MURDER the UNBORN by the MILLIONS???
fyi, i'm for EQUAL RIGHTS for UNBORN women, too.
free dixie,sw
Now you’re just toying with him....I’ve seen stagnant pond water with more intelligence...
Answer the question. Where is the flaw in the Chief Justice’s logic? If not the Supreme Court then who?
fwiw, YOU are well-known on these threads for NEVER answering any question that requires THOUGHT and/or making an admission on your part, that you are an expert on nothing.
further, you would certainly NEVER provide a TRUTHFUL answer to any question that would cause the radical/extremist unionist cause to look as DISHONEST/dictatorial/hate-FILLED as it IS.
i also have said numerous times on these threads that UNACCOUNTABLE judges, who sit for life, are a POOR choice to make decisions that are not & were NEVER the intention of the authors of our Constitution. judges MAKING LAW out of whole cloth was NEVER the intention of the authors.
judges should NEVER do any more than INTERPRET the law in a particular case & the other two branches of the government have been GUTLESS in not "slapping down" such judges as may try to MAKE law.
given the history of the court & the inability of the executive/congress to "rein in" even the WORST abuses of common sense/the Constitution, i do NOT know the practical answer to your question. that, in a nutshell, is WHY i fear for our LIBERTY.
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.