Sarah in 2012, Piper in 2036!!!
Posted on 12/11/2009 6:28:41 AM PST by rhema
In reviewing Chapter VIII which covers the account of the tea party period, the thought occurs that someone ought to publish this Chapter as a stand-alone piece to distribute to today's Tea Party movement. What an inspiration that would be for those who see themselves in much the same manner as did the patriots of that day.
For instance, on pages 316 and 317, Frothingham records that Samuel Adams, though hoping that their protests would result in changes by the oppressive British government, "He stood, however, firm in his conviction of what public duty demanded. . . . Their opposition to unconstitutional measures had grown into system; colony communed freely with colony; there was among the colonies a common affection,--the commuis sensus; the whole continent had become united in sentiment and in opposition to tyranny."
He observed that the colonies wanted union, "on the condition of equal liberty. This is all they had for ten years been contending for, and nothing short of this would or ought to satisfy them." This quotation is footnoted to a letter signed by Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, and William Heath, and addressed to Franklin, with further documentation.
Of the effort, Frothingham quotes from Samuel Adams' letter to James Warren, March 31, 1774:
"It is our duty at all hazards to preserve the public liberty. Righteous Heaven will graciously smile on every manly and rational attempt to secure that best of all gifts to man from the ravishing hand of lawless and brutal power."
Is this not the spirit of the brave Americans who see today's massive growth of accumulation of power among a Washington elite of both Parties and view themselves as brothers and sisters of the original tea partiers of 1773 and 1774? They only wish, as did those citizens, according to Frothingham, that their government will "alter their policy" and return the full measure of liberty enjoyed for two centuries in America.
“It is time for a Twelfth Commandment for the Republican party,
Thou shalt speak no ill of Sarah Palin
Strictly enforced by banishment.”
Is it considered ‘speaking ill of her’ if we just post her own words? I’ve been called every name under the sun for doing just that. Or shall we just ignore anything she says that her fans might not like?
Yes, please. As roughly as possible.
He replied, "What makes you think there's a dimes worth of difference between the two Parties".
The parties make opposing speeches but their actions are often the same because they take orders from the same paymasters. On the rare occasion when politicians rebel against paymasters, the difference in the parties shines through.
A few years later GHWB ran the worlds worst reelection campaign and guess who became POTUS?
Even with the Dole/McCain style campaign run by GHWB, it still took a third-party to enable the election Clinton. Watch the elitists try to launch a third party if Palin wins the Republican nomination.
Congress can pass any law it likes! And the courts can interpret it anyway it likes!
Of course not, just keep it accurate and in context.
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.
So, the "judicial power" is here defined, and it includes the cases where Constitutional meaning will be questioned, as we have seen in 200 years of practice. The power, then, resides with the independent judicial branch to interpret the Constitution.
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.
This Congressional regulation you are celebrating does not remove from the national judiciary jurisdiction over such cases. It only gives Congress the power to make some other federal court the final say. Either way, the final word resides in federal (national) court.
It's funny that you argue that the Constitution is perfect, and yet refuse to accept its workings. The Congress decides for itself what is Constitutional? LoL!
This is true and this is a difficult discussion, as you both are essentially correct.
The Constitution, as the great patriots that wrote it, is as humans. Not perfect.
Thus, again, it finally rests with good and evil, and the qualities of men.
The SCOTUS can be reigned in by regaining the Congress and White House, and packing the court.
Additionally, the SCOTUS is the only Constitutionally required Federal court, the rest exist at the pleasure of Congress.
SCOTUS was intended by the framers to be a trial court. In a usurpation of power, SCOTUS has shirked that duty. Threat that they would be the only Federal court in the land might scare 'em straight if packing doesn't.
I don't claim the Constitution is perfect. I am only aware that you daily disparage the best system of government ever devised.
Maybe it’s like those Bush National Guard letters written in the 1960s with Microsoft Word.
Sarah Palin can accomplish more for the Country outside of a political office. No third parties. Rebuild the Republican Party.
That only goes so far. We can see how difficult it is to do. Plus, even conservative judges only go so far when it comes to overturning well-established precedent. The amount of cases, and the overall significance of them, that would have to be overturned would represent a revolution and wouldn't be tolerated, by the people or their elected officials.
SCOTUS was intended by the framers to be a trial court. land might scare 'em straight if packing doesn't.
A trial court without a jury? They debated having a jury on the supreme court, but it didn't take. The Federal Court decides, finally, all questions of law arising under the Constitution. They haven't usurped authority. They have executed authority. The quarrel is the broadness of their interpretations. But there's nothing in the Constitution telling them HOW they must decide cases===separation of powers.
Sarah in 2012, Piper in 2036!!!
“I see you’re still clinging to that Univision interview.
Reminds me of a drowning man hanging into wreckage.”
That’s it, Ivan...condemn me for repeating the words of Sarah Palin,and what SHE stated was her postition, BUT don’t hold her to them...
Tell ya what, you let me know when she says something that you consider to be the truth. All you’re doing is admitting she may well be dishonest.
Now, the snow is coming down, losing my connection...it’s all yours.
Chicago style. This ain't your Daddy's Democrat Party ;^)
I wonder if you have ever made a vague statement under pressure that some people misunderstood.
Tell ya what, you let me know when she says something that you consider to be the truth. All you’re doing is admitting she may well be dishonest.
Palin made a vague and unclear statement on Univision about amnesty because she was pressured by handlers not to directly contradict the RINO establishment's pro-amnesty stance. Since becoming free of constraints, Palin has clarified her position with a precise statement rejecting amnesty. How is that cause for conservative disunity?
Not for me!
I saw with my own MK I eyeballs the disaster the last one was.
Far enough. FDR's threat alone forced SCOTUS to buckle and sign off on large pieces of previously unconstitutional legislation, which addresses difficulty, if you're popular enough it's not so difficult.
The amount of cases, and the overall significance of them, that would have to be overturned would represent a revolution and wouldn't be tolerated, by the people or their elected officials.
Assuming the packed majority is stupid RINOs. Conservatives don't have to act like DemoRats just because they have power. Conservatives would be wise enough to just overturn the nation killing Marxist crap at first. True, the anarchists would riot just as they do all the time, now. The court reformation would have huge support of normal citizens.
A trial court without a jury?
Why would you think that SCOTUS would not or could not seat a jury when required by the Constitution? They would do so in the same manner as any other Federal court.
A campaign such as this is a legal and reasonable way to reign in an out of control tyrannical court. Other methods are not necessarily so obviously legal, and you can be sure that those with power and the anti American Marxists they coddle and protect, will hurl any charge to derail the restoration of an originalist court. The method should be obviously legal to debunk said charges in advance.
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.