Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An End to Judicial Tyranny?
American Opinion Publishing Incorporated ^ | October 18, 2004 | Thomas R. Eddlem

Posted on 10/09/2004 3:06:08 PM PDT by Ed Current

Twice this year, the House has passed bills to curb judicial activism by limiting federal court jurisdiction.

The passage of the Pledge Protection Act of 2004 (H.R. 2028) by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 21 by a vote of 247-173 has highlighted some very encouraging signs in Congress. And I do not simply mean that the Pledge of Allegiance would be protected, though that is a good thing as well.

H.R. 2028 states: "No court created by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide" cases pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill, along with a related, earlier House-passed measure known as the Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (H.R. 3313), has prompted a few congressmen to dust off and read their copy of the U.S. Constitution.

It’s always a good thing when you can get congressmen to look at the Constitution, especially when so many of them routinely vote for unconstitutional legislation.

The Pledge Protection Act was introduced after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down on a technicality the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress, a suit charging that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Like the Marriage Protection Act, which the House passed on July 22, the Pledge Protection Act would invoke the power of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — and, by extension, the jurisdiction of all other federal courts — under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Ordinarily, congressional committee reports are the perfect antidote for insomnia. But in the case of the House Judiciary Committee Report on the Marriage Protection Act, the repartee recorded in the report is both instructive and encouraging.

Ranking Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-Mich.), a radical leftist fixture in Congress for dec-ades, railed against the legislation, claiming that "this statute is itself unconstitutional." Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) countered that it "is obvious to anyone who actually reads the Constitution that Congress can do this." Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part: "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."

Conyers asked if Hostettler had seen any "research brought to his attention that we would limit any application for appellate review." Hostettler’s reply was simple and direct: "The main body of research I have done is to read the Constitution of the United States."

Liberals are incensed over the prospect that they may no longer be able to legislate through the courts. During the debate on the Pledge Protection Act, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) complained, "Once my colleagues start down this road, this is the second time the majority has done this, telling us that the Supreme Court cannot decide, they are going to create a precedent, if this ever succeeds, that will be followed in other issues." What other issues? Over the years activist federal courts have issued rulings on a whole host of issues ranging from abortion to anti-sodomy laws to school prayer. By limiting the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary on these issues, they could be returned to the states — where they belong!

Liberal Democrats who worry about excessive use of this provision of the Constitution do have a point. A totally activist court could in theory be prohibited from deciding on all but a few matters that the Constitution guarantees to the Supreme Court.

But that’s not a reason to stop encouraging this form of legislation to limit the jurisdiction of activist judges. Invoking Article III, Section 2 is a relatively mild check on the federal judiciary provided to the legislature by the U.S. Constitution. Congress also possesses the power to impeach judges. In fact, Congress could even abolish any and all federal courts except for the Supreme Court.

And Congress does appear to be, finally, showing some vigilance. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) told his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that judicial activism "seems to have reached a crisis. Judges routinely overrule the will of the people and invent new rights and ignore traditional morality. Judges have redefined marriage, deemed the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional, outlawed religious practices and imposed their personal views on Americans." Smith correctly observed: "They seem to be legislators, not judges, promoters of a partisan agenda, not wise teachers relying on established law."

In that, Smith sounded impressively like President Jefferson, whom Judiciary Committee members found had written the following to a friend in 1821: "You seem … to consider the [federal] 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.... 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."

Fortunately, the U.S. Congress appears to be awakening to the judicial oligarchy in America. Congressmen and their constituents need to unite under the Constitution to put activist judges in their place, or find new judges who will judge the law without trying to rewrite the law.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fma; hr2028; hr3313; judicialactivism; marriageamendment; pledgeofallegiance; under
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
The federal courts, using an injudicious doctrine known as the 'Incorporation of the 14th Amendment' (Gitlow v. New York (1925) [19] ) , have hyperinflated their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution to grotesque proportions. Rather than admit they have no jurisdiction, as Marshall did in Amendment V: Barron v. Baltimore and declare what the Constitution states with regard to a particular case over which they have jurisdicion - federal judges fabricate their own private interpretation from the hubris opined in novel dicta and deviant precedent, from which even greater deviation is justified in subsequent decisions.

For the history and thorough refutation of the Incorporation Doctrine, see the following: The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998)., Jaffree v. Bd of School Comm., 554 F. Supp. 1104 (1983) Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition, Raoul Berger, Forrest McDonald , Liberty Fund, Inc.; 2nd edition (June 1997) The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights; The Incorporation Theory, Charles Fairman, Stanley Morrison, Leonard Williams Levy, Da Capo Press , January 1970

James Madison stated in The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." H.R. 2028/S. 1297 and H.R. 3313 restrain the rogue federal courts and empower judicial tyrants to keep their bogus opinions to themsleves.

The federal branches of government are coordinate, NOT coequal and they are all subordinate to the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law, NOT the Supreme Court:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates

The unconvinced should meditate day and night till you get it RIGHT on the following, or expatriate to the Democratic Party, or favorite European socialist enclave:

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2

Federalist No. 81

" The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous....But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.
The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ``in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.''
We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ``with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.''
To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.
The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable; PUBLIUS.

Article 6, Clause 2

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.

Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance by Ron Paul

Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.
Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.

Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny by Ron Paul

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.
The practice of judicial activism – legislating from the bench – is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Finally, what are the implications of the for the extra-constitutional majority opinion of Roe v Wade?

In the January 2003 edition of First Things, Robert H. Bork made the following comments about Roe v. Wade:
"Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that....Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception....Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion."
Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

1 posted on 10/09/2004 3:06:09 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

We MUST put an end to LAW by Judical Decree

or

Another way to say it,

We MUST put an END to LAW by demoncrat EXTREMISTS


2 posted on 10/09/2004 3:08:43 PM PDT by TheEnigma47 (kerry will NEVER deserve forgiveness for his treachery to America's Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEnigma47

We MUST put an end to LAW by Judical Decree

Democracy by Decree | by Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod

While American neoconservatives use "the war on terror" to impose democracy on the Middle East, two New York Law School professors urge us to rescue democracy here at home. In a newly released book from Yale University Press, "Democracy by Decree," Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod show how the plaintiff's bar and judges have used consent decrees to take government away from elected officials.
The two law professors know of what they speak. The careers of both as "public interest" attorneys contributed to creating the situation which they now deplore.
Rule by coercive court decree originated with the public school desegregation case, Brown vs. Board of Education. Issues & Views: The <i>Brown v. Board of Education</i> Fraud Prior to this case, reform relied on persuasion, a balancing of contending interests, and appeals to public opinion. Brown inaugurated a new era of reform coerced by class action lawsuits and judicial decrees.
The result, according to Messrs. Sandler and Schoenbrod, is that law in the U.S. is no longer accountable to the people, because state and local governments have lost both legislative and administrative powers. Schools, welfare agencies, prisons - indeed, practically the entire range of state and local public institutions - are actually controlled by attorneys and judges, not by governors, mayors and the voting public.
Mr. Sandler and Mr. Schoenbrod offer measures that they believe would restore politically accountable law, but American democracy might be too far gone. The will to fight has departed from legislative bodies, and the American people are distracted and uninformed. Legislators, mayors and governors have learned they can avoid making political enemies by letting judges decide divisive issues.

3 posted on 10/09/2004 3:11:46 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
It’s always a good thing when you can get congressmen to look at the Constitution

A frightening thing to think that congressmen would not keep the constitution in mind at all times. I suspect many may not be familiar with it however.

4 posted on 10/09/2004 3:12:25 PM PDT by Wneighbor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

"Liberals are incensed over the prospect that they may no longer be able to legislate through the courts. "



Let's not forget the abuse of the executive order during the Clinton admin. People were beginning to rethink that privledge too.

Give Liberals any power and they will abuse it. This is because they, at bottom, consider themselves infallible.


5 posted on 10/09/2004 3:14:49 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

The courts will probably somehow interpret this act as unconstitutional.


6 posted on 10/09/2004 3:16:00 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Impeachment Clauses

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 65

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3, Section 1

. . . The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . . . Topics in Judicial History

7 posted on 10/09/2004 3:18:15 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

There you go. I think before this is all said and done, if we are to regain our Republic, then we are going to have to impeach some judges. Making an example of even a couple of them might scare the rest of them straight.


8 posted on 10/09/2004 3:20:48 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Making an example of even a couple of them might scare the rest of them straight.

Exactly, one of the arguments advanced in this Law Review Article

9 posted on 10/09/2004 3:24:09 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
I'd like to see that, cause that will be the day the supreme court found the US Constitution unconstitutional. Heh, we could fire them all then.
10 posted on 10/09/2004 3:29:21 PM PDT by WritableSpace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

If thats the case then why doesn't Congress just sign an unborn child protection act, and then forbid the federal courts from ruling on it?


11 posted on 10/09/2004 3:37:55 PM PDT by WritableSpace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Getting 2/3 of the Senate will be almost impossible because just like in the Clinton impeachment, Dems will not vote for impeachment even if there is overwhelming evidence. They will instead just grandstand and try to win political points against the Pubbies, saying that we are being unconstitutional. They know that the media would be with them and that most Americans would be to stupid to see the truth. hate to be pessimistic, but I think that is the situation.


12 posted on 10/09/2004 3:38:25 PM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Getting 2/3 of the Senate will be almost impossible because just like in the Clinton impeachment, Dems will not vote for impeachment even if there is overwhelming evidence. They will instead just grandstand and try to win political points against the Pubbies, saying that we are being unconstitutional. They know that the media would be with them and that most Americans would be to stupid to see the truth. hate to be pessimistic, but I think that is the situation.


13 posted on 10/09/2004 3:38:41 PM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WritableSpace
Cowardice and ignorance coupled with the incessant shrill demand to correct the Constitution via amendment, when the federal courts are the problem.
14 posted on 10/09/2004 3:43:59 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
Dear Mr. Current,

Excellent Post, Sir.

I particularly like the Bork quotes and the Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003.

Welcome to Free Republic.

"If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary."
--Thomas Jefferson

15 posted on 10/09/2004 3:45:07 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (Abortion is the Choice of Satan, the father of lies and a MURDERER from the beginning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
Impeachment from the U.S. House would more than give most federal judges pause.

Conviction in the Senate is not required to fire a shot across their unconstitutional bow.

16 posted on 10/09/2004 3:47:41 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
"The federal courts, using an injudicious doctrine known as the 'Incorporation of the 14th Amendment' (Gitlow v. New York (1925) [19] ) , have hyperinflated their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution to grotesque proportions. Rather than admit they have no jurisdiction, as Marshall did in Amendment V: Barron v. Baltimore" ---

______________________________________

Do you agree with Marshalls opinion in Barron that States are not bound to honor our BOR's?

Is CA 'legally' banning assault weapons by ignoring our 2nd Amendment?
17 posted on 10/09/2004 3:48:27 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Thank you and please add me to your outstanding PRO-LIFE ping list.
18 posted on 10/09/2004 3:49:01 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

The answer to your question is provided in post #1.


19 posted on 10/09/2004 3:50:43 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

I can't find your answer. Can you point it out?


20 posted on 10/09/2004 3:52:37 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...
Excellent and Comprehensive Post on Ending Judicial Tyranny. A MUST in order to end the abortion Holocaust.

PING

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

21 posted on 10/09/2004 4:00:21 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (Abortion is the Choice of Satan, the father of lies and a MURDERER from the beginning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I apologize.

The resources in the second paragraph of post#1 are more than sufficient explanation.

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or crime control. It is the ultimate check on tyrannical federal government.

I recommend the The Revolutionary Second Amendment with the following in mind:

Hot Topics - visionforum.org Black's Law Dictionary: Interposition

"The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.
The concept is based on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reserving to the states powers not delegated to the United States. Historically, the doctrine emanated from Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419, wherein the state of Georgia, when sued in the Supreme Court by a private citizen of another state, entered a remonstrance and declined to recognize the court's jurisdiction. Amendment 11 validated Georgia's position.
Implementation of the doctrine may be peaceable, as by resolution, remonstrance or legislation, or may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance."

James Madison, 'Father of the Constitution',Virginia Resolution : 1798

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution : 1799

That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kenres.htm

22 posted on 10/09/2004 4:01:18 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current; writer33; CourtneyLeigh; hiredhand

Extremely well stated. Thoughtfully written personal page, too! Welcome to FR, from a fellow paleocon!


23 posted on 10/09/2004 4:01:42 PM PDT by Lexinom (America needs Jonathan Edwards, not John Edwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
Welcome to the Pro-Life Ping List!

Also, please take time to visit my websites:

CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS FOR LIFE at:
http://www.CpForLife.org’

NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL at:
http://www.CpForLife.org/Memorial

Knights For Life at
http://www.KnightsForLife.org

Thanks,

Kevin

24 posted on 10/09/2004 4:02:40 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (Abortion is the Choice of Satan, the father of lies and a MURDERER from the beginning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TwoWolves

Bump


25 posted on 10/09/2004 4:05:16 PM PDT by TwoWolves (The only kind of control the liberals don't want is self control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Thank you very much.

Very nice to find a fellow paleo with a most outstanding tag line.

26 posted on 10/09/2004 4:10:23 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
"...Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception....Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion."

Ed Current

______________________________________


If thats the case then why doesn't Congress just sign an unborn child protection act, and then forbid the federal courts from ruling on it?
11 WritableSpace

______________________________________


Cowardice and ignorance coupled with the incessant shrill demand to correct the Constitution via amendment, when the federal courts are the problem.

14 Ed Current

______________________________________


Congress cannot just make up a 'rule' regarding our fundamental rights to life liberty & property, any more than can States.
All legislative bodies must use due process in framing law..

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

     "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
27 posted on 10/09/2004 4:18:42 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current; WritableSpace
"...Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception....Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion."

Ed Current

______________________________________


If thats the case then why doesn't Congress just sign an unborn child protection act, and then forbid the federal courts from ruling on it?
11 WritableSpace

______________________________________


Cowardice and ignorance coupled with the incessant shrill demand to correct the Constitution via amendment, when the federal courts are the problem.

14 Ed Current

______________________________________


Congress cannot just make up a 'rule' regarding our fundamental rights to life liberty & property, any more than can States.
All legislative bodies must use due process in framing law..

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

     "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
28 posted on 10/09/2004 4:21:06 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
H.R. 2028 states: "No court created by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide" cases pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill, along with a related, earlier House-passed measure known as the Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (H.R. 3313), has prompted a few congressmen to dust off and read their copy of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't think that would pass muster, since the Supreme Court would claim appellate jurisdiction in the matters which were barred to other courts.

I would think that to be constitutional (though admittedly even this would be in defiance of the Founder's intention, except insofar as it may be necessary to counter the Supreme Court's actions in defiance of that same intention) what Congress would have to do would be to create two new appellate courts related to "freedom from relgion" cases. The first court would be predisposed to support reasonable actions by local and state governments even if they happen to somehow mention something related to God or Christianity. The second court would have appellate jurisdiction over the first, but might take awhile to hear certain cases.

Note that I deplore judicial obstructionism, but if evil people can use it, I see no reason for unilateral disarmament.

29 posted on 10/09/2004 4:25:22 PM PDT by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current; tpaine
"The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or crime control. It is the ultimate check on tyrannical federal government."

But the question by tpaine was about California's ban on "assault rifles."

The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled (more than once, I believe ) that there is no individual right to a firearm. They have also said the USSC would have to overturn two rulings that the Second Amendment is only a restriction on the Federal govt.

It seems the Supremes are reluctant to overturn the previous cases. Without overturn, the case law becomes law (so said Justice O'Connor).

30 posted on 10/09/2004 4:29:35 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The federal courts were not given veto power over state and local laws not subject to their jurisdiction.
31 posted on 10/09/2004 4:34:08 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
You mean the House has actually decided to read and
follow the Constitution. Incredible. Isn't that why
they are there?
The federal judiciary needs to be reeled in. The framers
of the Constitution never intended to give the Courts
the final word or power that they think to have.
It all started with Marbury v. Madison, (1803), and a
wimpy Congress that allowed the Courts to trample on
them. This could be the start to check activist judges.

32 posted on 10/09/2004 4:35:44 PM PDT by Smartass (BUSH & CHENEY 2004 Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Do you agree with Marshalls opinion in Barron that States are not bound to honor our BOR's?

Is CA 'legally' banning assault weapons by ignoring our 2nd Amendment?

The First Amendment, as written, placed no restrictions on state governments. Although its plain meaning would forbid Congress from passing laws restricting broadcasting or campaign advertising, nothing in the First Amendment would forbid states from imposing even draconion censorship laws if they so choose.

One fundamental difficulty with the notion of "incorporation" as applied to the First Amendment is that while the First Amendment is vast in what it limits (it forbids any sort of law that might abridge the enumerated freedoms) it's narrow in who it restricts (Congress), the protections states must give are necessarily narrower in what they restrict and broader in who. Trying to apply the First Amendment to the states is thus a very poor fit.

Or, to look at things another way, the First Amendment should be applied against the states, but only in a literal fashion: no state should a abridge people's right not to have Congress of the United States pass laws restricting the Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion, etc. Pre-17th-Amendment, such a rule might actually have had some meaning, as it would forbid states from appointing Senators who would seek to pass such laws. And I suppose even today it could be applicable against Electors, though--sad to say--such an interpretation would forbid states from appointing electors who would vote for Bush.

33 posted on 10/09/2004 4:36:50 PM PDT by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: supercat

since the Supreme Court would claim appellate jurisdiction in the matters which were barred to other courts.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2

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 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

 

 

34 posted on 10/09/2004 4:41:13 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gatex
The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled (more than once, I believe ) that there is no individual right to a firearm. They have also said the USSC would have to overturn two rulings that the Second Amendment is only a restriction on the Federal govt.

Actually, what the Supreme Court could do if it wanted to maintain consistency with itself would be to reaffirm what it actually said in Miller (as opposed to what the syllabus says, or what other cases have claimed that it said). To wit: for someone to claim that the rights related to particular artifacts are protected by the Second Amendment, one must show that the artifacts are of a type that would be suitable for use as Arms in a well-functioning citizen army.

Under such an interpretation, the government could restrict or tax alcohol even though it can be used to make weapons (molotov cocktails) since such items are not generally useful in a well-functioning citizen army. It could also restrict such items as the goofy "credit card shotgun" that appeard on a couple threads last week. But weaponry similar to that used by armies here and abroad would clearly presumably be suitable for such use.

If the Supreme Court were to issue such a ruling, it would be entirely consistent with its own precedent and indeed would be upholding its own precedent against misapplication. Unfortunately, I don't think that what the Court actually said in Miller is what the Court really wants to say.

35 posted on 10/09/2004 4:43:58 PM PDT by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
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.

Yes, I know that's what the Constitution clearly says, but you and I both know that the Supreme Court will "interpret" even the plainest text as needed to support their view. I really don't think the public would oppose the Supreme Court if it refused to acknowledge legislation which shut it out entirely.

On the other hand, given that the Supreme Court has already held that--absent explicit mechanisms for doing so--decisions cannot be appealed until they are rendered, I would think that having an appellate court in line to the Supremes which simply took awhile to hear cases would be more likely to pass muster (or else require the Supreme Court to acknowledge that people should not have to wait for a decision before appealing 'inaction'). And actually, if the Supreme Court took the latter approach, I'd be glad of it, since judicial obstructionism can and does lead to tyranies even more insidious than judicial decisions.

36 posted on 10/09/2004 4:49:53 PM PDT by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gatex

Without overturn, the case law becomes law (so said Justice O'Connor).

The federal courts issue opinions. They don't make LAW. The legislature makes law.

The President can either enforce, or refuse to enforce judicial opinions.

A point made in the second debate last night by Bush:

Unborn in Roe V Wade, Blacks in Dred Scott Supreme Court Decisions ...
If, as the Supreme Court held, slaves and the unborn are not "persons" what are they? They become a form of property. The legal impact of Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 was to free slave owners to abuse or even kill an unruly slave "property" if they so chose. The legal impact of Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 was to free pregnant women to abuse or even kill an unborn infant if they so choose.

37 posted on 10/09/2004 4:51:10 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
Do you agree with Marshalls opinion in Barron that States are not bound to honor our BOR's?
Is CA 'legally' banning assault weapons by ignoring our 2nd Amendment?

Ed Current wrote:
I apologize. The resources in the second paragraph of post #1 are more than sufficient explanation.

Not really, and below you still do not answer my question .

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or crime control. It is the ultimate check on tyrannical federal government.

True enough. But do you support CA's 'power' to ignore our RKBA's?

I recommend the 'The Revolutionary Second Amendment'

That site seems to agree with you that guns can be banned by States. -- Correct me if I'm wrong.

with the following in mind: Hot Topics - visionforum.org Black's Law Dictionary:
Interposition "The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.

And in the case in question, CA has rejected the 2nd Amendment? -- Please advise.

38 posted on 10/09/2004 4:51:59 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I really don't think the public would oppose the Supreme Court if it refused to acknowledge legislation which shut it out entirely.

The good freedom loving folk of Iraq allowed Saddam to govern. I agree that the good freedom loving folk of the U.S. will probably continue to allow SCOTUS to dictate.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. - James Madison

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 - Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:

"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.

"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).

Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:

"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

39 posted on 10/09/2004 4:56:58 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I agree the wording of Miller should be cleared up by the Supremes.

This is the USSC case the the 9th Circuit court of Appeals is using to say that the State ( California ) is not restricted by the Second Amendment ---

Link to --- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Quote --- "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States. "

40 posted on 10/09/2004 5:00:29 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

Cowardice and ignorance coupled with the incessant shrill demand to correct the Constitution via amendment, when the federal courts are the problem.
14 Ed Current

______________________________________


Congress cannot just make up a 'rule' regarding our fundamental rights to life liberty & property, any more than can States.

All legislative bodies must use due process in framing law..


As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
     "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
27 tpaine

______________________________________


The federal courts were not given veto power over state and local laws not subject to their jurisdiction.
31 Ed C


______________________________________


I've never claimed the feds had 'veto power'.

Are you saying States have the power to ignore our BOR's?


41 posted on 10/09/2004 5:05:59 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."

One thing that I think needs to happen is to form a balance between having a court which can make decisions with neither regard for earlier precedent nor regard for the precedent the decision will make, and a court which is so bound by the concept of precedent that either it cannot deal with exceptional cases or else it gets "stuck" by them.

At minimum, the court needs to be able to make explicit in a decision that the facts of the extant case make it unique, and thus it should not be used for guidance in how to decide more general cases.

Further, I would like to see the Court be able to issue a decision in such a way as to explicitly create "anti-precedent". For example, if the court found that a statute as worded forbade an activity but also found that a reasonable person reading the statute might well conclude otherwise, I would like for the Court to issue a ruling which would forbid prosecution under the state's reading of the statute of any action performed before the second business day following the Court's ruling, but would allow prosecution for actions performed after that time.

To be sure, if there were nothing to discourage a court from doing that on every case, a court could decide cases at whim without rhyme or reason creating a judicial tyranny at least as bad as what exists now. But if it could be made clear that decisions claiming "exceptional facts" were to be regarded as inferior to decisions which did not claim such, except when such claim was in fact materially necessary, such things might be kept in check.

42 posted on 10/09/2004 5:12:52 PM PDT by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
"The federal courts issue opinions. They don't make LAW. The legislature makes law."

What is case law ?

The Calif. Legislature banned "assault weapons." ---The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was okay. ---The 9th Circuit Court (as I recall ) said that the USSC would have to overturn Cruikshank (and Presser ) before the Second Amendment could restrict the Calif. legislature.

This is the enforced law in California.

43 posted on 10/09/2004 5:22:31 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
But where was due process when the lives of unborn persons were summarily rendered subservient to the will of others?

Did the courts not already violate this when they did not hear the defense of those unborn?

44 posted on 10/09/2004 5:30:14 PM PDT by WritableSpace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

And in the case in question, CA has rejected the 2nd Amendment? -- Please advise.

It does appear that we live in a UNITED STATE, rather than the United States. The federal government wasn't created to enforce the BOR. The BOR were added to RESTRAIN the federal government.

Work to change the CA law! Folk in other states should not allow same to occur in their own state and donate resources to CA folk who are trying to repeal this law!

Citizens should have access to weapons that pose a serious deterrent to the federal government. This would include personal possession of any firearm in use by the military or federal police. WMD aren't needed to deter fed gov from imposing martial law, if the citizenry are appropriately armed and sufficient numbers in the military and fed police support Constitutional government. The worst case would be civil war, vs the annihilation of large segments of the unarmed populace, as happened in various places last century.

Significantly prior to the BOR - The Avalon Project : Virginia Declaration of Rights

XIII
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

 

 

45 posted on 10/09/2004 5:33:57 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WritableSpace
Congress cannot just make up a 'rule' regarding our fundamental rights to life liberty & property, any more than can States.

All legislative bodies must use due process in framing law..

As the second Justice Harlan
recognized:
     "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."

But where was due process when the lives of unborn persons were summarily rendered subservient to the will of others?

Roe was decided because States were attempting to decree that early term abortion is murder. -- Due process tells us that juries get to decide that question in the USA.

Did the courts not already violate this when they did not hear the defense of those unborn?

The court was defending a womens right not to be convicted of murder by unconstitutional decree, a "Malum Prohibitum" - An act which is deemed illegal because it is seen [by some] as immoral.

46 posted on 10/09/2004 5:52:56 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
Do you support CA's 'power' to ignore our RKBA's?

I recommend the 'The Revolutionary Second Amendment'

That site seems to agree with you that guns can be banned by States. -- Correct me if I'm wrong.

with the following in mind: Hot Topics - visionforum.org Black's Law Dictionary:
Interposition "The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.

And in the case in question, CA has rejected the 2nd Amendment?
-- Please advise.

It does appear that we live in a UNITED STATE, rather than the United States. The federal government wasn't created to enforce the BOR.

Read the Preamble Ed. -- Establishing a Union and Securing the Blessings of constitutional Liberties pretty well says it all.

The BOR were added to RESTRAIN the federal government.

You deny that it also restrains the States? Read the 10th again about prohibited powers. One prohibited from State infringement is our RKBA's.

Work to change the CA law! Folk in other states should not allow same to occur in their own state and donate resources to CA folk who are trying to repeal this law! Citizens should have access to weapons that pose a serious deterrent to the federal government. This would include personal possession of any firearm in use by the military or federal police. WMD aren't needed to deter fed gov from imposing martial law, if the citizenry are appropriately armed and sufficient numbers in the military and fed police support Constitutional government. The worst case would be civil war, vs the annihilation of large segments of the unarmed populace, as happened in various places last century.

You are preaching to the choir, Ed.

Significantly prior to the BOR - The Avalon Project : Virginia Declaration of Rights XIII
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

Again, -- we can all agree that the miltary is controled by civil power. --- Are you trying to say that a State should have the power to control/prohibit military 'type' arms, as does CA?    

47 posted on 10/09/2004 6:20:51 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
If congress passed a criminal law saying that all the doctors, and all the nurses of a hospital can just walk out one single morning without giving reasonable warning, they would be held responsible for the resulting deaths of their patients. If that occurred, the Supreme court would then say this would violate a persons right to leave work? What about the precedent? What about the lives of those and other patients who could be further harmed by this new trend of unreliability?

If Congress criminalized the actions of Parents who leave their children to die in their cars so that they could go off to the salon, then the supreme court could abrogate that by saying that those parents are not responsible for the murder of their children?

Due process also says a person has the "Right to be heard in one's own defense."

But are you saying that the supreme court found a way to say who is as good as dead without a trial?

48 posted on 10/09/2004 6:46:01 PM PDT by WritableSpace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: WritableSpace
WSpace wrote:

If congress passed a criminal law saying that all the doctors, and all the nurses of a hospital can just walk out one single morning without giving reasonable warning, they would be held responsible for the resulting deaths of their patients.

No such 'law' could be passed.

If that occurred, the Supreme court would then say this would violate a persons right to leave work? What about the precedent? What about the lives of those and other patients who could be further harmed by this new trend of unreliability?

Why would the USSC 'say' that? Get a new example.

If Congress criminalized the actions of Parents who leave their children to die in their cars so that they could go off to the salon,

Such actions are, and always have been criminal.

then the supreme court could abrogate that by saying that those parents are not responsible for the murder of their children?

Rest assured, Space. They wouldn't.

Due process also says a person has the "Right to be heard in one's own defense."

Good point. But are you saying that the supreme court found a way to say who is as good as dead without a trial?

It is still perfectly legal, anywhere in the USA, to find a prosecutor to file murder charges against a woman who has had an abortion, and bring her to trial. Let a jury decide the issue.

49 posted on 10/09/2004 7:12:34 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: WritableSpace
WSpace wrote:

If congress passed a criminal law saying that all the doctors, and all the nurses of a hospital can just walk out one single morning without giving reasonable warning, they would be held responsible for the resulting deaths of their patients.

No such 'law' could be passed.

If that occurred, the Supreme court would then say this would violate a persons right to leave work? What about the precedent? What about the lives of those and other patients who could be further harmed by this new trend of unreliability?

Why would the USSC 'say' that? Get a new example.

If Congress criminalized the actions of Parents who leave their children to die in their cars so that they could go off to the salon,

Such actions are, and always have been criminal.

then the supreme court could abrogate that by saying that those parents are not responsible for the murder of their children?

Rest assured, Space. They wouldn't.

Due process also says a person has the "Right to be heard in one's own defense."

Good point.

But are you saying that the supreme court found a way to say who is as good as dead without a trial?

It is still perfectly legal, anywhere in the USA, to find a prosecutor to file murder charges against a woman who has had an abortion, and bring her to trial. Let a jury decide the issue. [Corrected]

50 posted on 10/09/2004 7:14:55 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson