New group wants Bush out

The Daily Texan (UT paper) ^ | 10/17/2005 | Jimmie Collins

[proud American in Canada]

No offense, and good luck raising your children.

I take no offense at all; in fact, I thank you for your post, and I am going to hit the books again to research this; I love this! I'll hit the old books in my basement. :)

You know what? The United States is so much richer for people like you. I've lived in Canada for 5 years now, and no one gives a cr*p. Well, they do, but then most of them just give up.

So thank you for caring, thank you for your patriotism.

Take care. :)

[Danae]

Thank you Proud!

AMU is a good school and has an accredited program with instructors that are tops in their fields. My husband was in the Navy Submarine force and served on the USS Grant SSBN 631.

PF is a looser! He seems to think that simply by insulting someone you can make some sort of intellectual point. Sigh. Some people never learn. I have said all I plan on saying, it is not only a waste of time, it is stroking his ego, making him feel important. That seems to be the only thing he has gotten across with any clarity anyway.

Thanks for defending some of my positions. It goes with out saying, at the very least, the Dimocrats would have been all over the courts and proceeding with impeachment if indeed the President had violated the Constitution instead of panting over Plame gate. That or they are trying to distract from the report Hillary does not want to hit congress! Could be ya never know. surely better minds than PF's have been over it with a fine toothed comb and found nothing.

Thanks again! :)

[Danae]

Thank you Proud!

AMU is a good school and has an accredited program with instructors that are tops in their fields. My husband was in the Navy Submarine force and served on the USS Grant SSBN 631.

PF is a looser! He seems to think that simply by insulting someone you can make some sort of intellectual point. Sigh. Some people never learn. I have said all I plan on saying, it is not only a waste of time, it is stroking his ego, making him feel important. That seems to be the only thing he has gotten across with any clarity anyway.

Thanks for defending some of my positions. It goes with out saying, at the very least, the Dimocrats would have been all over the courts and proceeding with impeachment if indeed the President had violated the Constitution instead of panting over Plame gate. That or they are trying to distract from the report Hillary does not want to hit congress! Could be ya never know. surely better minds than PF's have been over it with a fine toothed comb and found nothing.

Thanks again! :)

[pacesferry1967]

maybe some of the ankle biters here will be joining in the protests

[danmar]

"A Republican congress is not going to impeach Bush unless he's caught committing felonies in the White House," Prindle said. "Nothing in his character suggests he would resign ... and barring a stroke or cerebral hemorrhage, I don't see Cheney removing him from office."

My question to you is, why should we afford this lunatic any bandwidth.

Look at this piece of garbage we, as a tax payer subsidize, and call him a teacher/professor to indoctrinate our kids, courtesy of your friendly government subsidized brain washing.

I wish some congress person with some balls will come out with a law prohibiting any political views personal or otherwise to be exposed to the students at any level and/or time.

Institution of learning of any kind, should be prohibited of any politics period.

[Danae]

Dude, you are so blinded by your won brilliance you must have missed that I am a woman.

Haha No one should take this guy serious!!

[PhilipFreneau]

So thank you for caring, thank you for your patriotism.

Thank you for you kind words.

Regarding Marbury vs. Madison, it is important to recall the reasoning for the opinion. Marshall determined that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 under which Marbury had brought suit was unconstitutional, and therefore the Court was powerless to help him. In deriving his opinion, Marshall stated the following:

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect . . . The authority . . . given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.

Note that Marshall was not asserting an opinion on his feelings, his ideology, or the current political status; but rather whether the constitution provides authority, or not. In this situation he declared that authority given to the Supreme Court by the congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789, was not authorized by the Constitution; and he must therefore determine if he has the power to exercise that unauthorized authority.

So he asked a question, whether "an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land?" Then it gets good. Marshall asserted:

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

That statement clearly indicates that it is the People of the United States, only, who have the authority to establish the principles of the constitution. He further implied that changing those principles is a difficult act, indeed. Mere acts of the congress, or usurpations of power by the President or the Courts, do not fall into this category. Therefore, one can only infer that Marshall was referring to changes made only by an Amendment to the Constitution as authorized in Article V -- a difficult process requiring initial agreement by two-thirds of both houses of the congress, or two-thirds of the state legislatures, and final approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures. To rebuff legislative tyranny, he wrote:

"The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution and is, consequently, to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject."

So, every legislative act not authorized by the Constution is void. But what about the courts? Marshall wrote:

". . . 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. If, then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

That covers rulings on legislative acts, but what about rulings on other activities? Marshall wrote:

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? . . . it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts as well as of the legislature.

And he concluded with this warning...

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Here Marshall determined that jurists who make rulings outside the boundaries of the constitution are, well, criminals. But we all know that. And finally, in summary, he wrote:

". . . the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Therefore, Canadian Girl, your statement that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitution is true, according to Marshall; but only if the court remains within the boundaries of the constitution as amended by the people. Otherwise, the courts are no more legitimate than the Mafia. Even less so, in my opinion.

Hope that helps...

[PhilipFreneau]

Dude, you are so blinded by your won brilliance you must have missed that I am a woman. Haha No one should take this guy serious!!

Danae, sorry to get on your case so hard. I hope you understand that it was nothing personal; just my fervent desire to prevent the Constitution from being miscontrued.

As for me being brilliant? Far from it. I do have an uncommon interest in constitutional history; but brilliant I am not. Now, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were brilliant. So was the editor of their newspaper, The National Gazette. His name was Philip Freneau (yep, the real Philip Freneau). His best editorial, in my opinion, was Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one, written in 1792. Check it out.

[Danae]

I take your apology. You had no just cause to pound down my keyboard.

You have mine as well. I apologize.

[BnBlFlag]

"Austin and Houston are part of the Blue Counties of Texas"......While Travis County (Austin) is a Blue County, Harris County (Houston) is a Red County and has been for years.

[AmeriBrit]

"instead of panting over Plame gate. That or they are trying to distract from the report Hillary does not want to hit congress! Could be ya never know."


I've had a gut feeling the Plame/Wilson case has been a coverup for the Clintons all along.( Peter Pauls case and also Congressman Weldon's expose on Able Danger)
Everytime someone gets close to revealing the crimes both of them have been involved in, something insignificant breaks to take the duo's names off the front page.

[Danae]

As weak as that case is (plame) I have to believe that either it is a false front to hide Hillary's little fudges or the Dim's are really just that morally bankrupt. Maybe some of both. What ever the case, Hillary is going to get her comeuppance soon, just in time for the full reelection bid for her Senate seat.