Posted on 07/29/2007 8:45:31 AM PDT by Calpernia
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo consistantly strive to protect the sovereignty of ‘The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave’!
Thank you for posting.
MEGABUMP!!!
Go Hunter and Tancredo! I am proud of you! Two men stand out above the rest of the field by doing rather than by saying!
This is the day that the Lord hath made. Let us be glad and take joy in it!
Don’t miss this though:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873287/posts?page=30#30
Dead Corpse noticed that Duncan Hunter didn’t vote on his own bill that he sponsored. Look at all the pork Dead found.
This stinks. The President may have to veto it and then it will turn into the President vetoed the bill ‘for his friend, Sutton’.
bump
and don’t miss post 45
>P.S. If this goes to court and they don’t like the outcome they could just defund that judge.<
LOL! A few of Clintoons ‘judges’ should be defunded - yesterday! :)
Thanks for passing on this info.
AMEN and AMEN!!
Hunters stock just went up significantly in my household.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, WHICH SHAL NOT BE DIMINISHED during their Continuance in Office
But mkjessup’s question was: What’s unConstitutional about the amendment? You haven’t responded to that yet.
Thanks for the quote. Interesting.
Congress has the power of the purse. This is absolute. It can fund and defund anything it wants to. The president, on the other hand, has the power to veto congressional action, in essence overruling them. If congress has a two-thirds majority, it can override the veto. Check, balance.
Congress can also defund the courts or limit their jurisdiction such to make them irrelevant. The court, in turn, can rule laws unconstitutional thus neutering them. With a constitutional ammandment, congress can overrule the court. Check, balance. But constitutional ammendment requires a two-third vote in congress AND three quarters of the states to approve it. This is virtually impossible. So the natural balance against the courts power is in essence gone.
Bottom line, don't worry about congress becoming despots, they cant agree on enough and we can vote them out and have a new congress which is better behaved. The court, on the other hand, cannot be overruled (as a practical matter) and cant be voted out, and they can change our constitution with only five votes. They are the ones to worry abaout.
I don’t think this would pass through judicial review. The amendment is clearly ex post facto in principle. I want to see these guys let out. I think they should be pardoned.
Well, Hunter and Poe and the others who got this amendment through could have just stood around and done NOTHING like everyone else.
Ex post facto isn’t intended to protect the government, but rather the people. Plus, there is nothing ex post facto about this amendment. It isn’t disallowing any prior actions, only future actions, as in, future allocation of funds.
Thanks for the ping. Too bad about the piggybacked crap added on. Is there any way to get a clean bill without the BS? (peeeeeelosi and company stand in the way)
Keeping the issue in the public eye is important.
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.