Posted on 03/22/2010 5:05:06 AM PDT by paythefiddler
Nice to see that you're as wrong as ever.
Gee, where does it say in the US Constitution that the Federal government can tell people to buy medical insurance?
Oh, that's right, it's not there...there.
It doesn't, which is why I don't expect the bill to make it past the Supreme Court. But unless you've never read the Constitution past Article V, which is certainly a possibility, then you'd have to understand that nullification by the states isn't allowed.
Congress will allege that the Interstate Commerce Clause covers this via the Supreme Court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn.
As to whether the current Supreme Court will accept that argument remains to be seen.
I say YES! Make him sweat. Don’t play the game on his court anymore. Let’s bring him onto ours.
So it is your belief that the Feds can make any law that violates the Constitution that will always trumps state laws when the Feds have no Constitutional authority to do so. What does the 9th or 10th Amendment say? And I’ve read Article 6.
It maybe time to relocated the Supreme Court to Nebraska or somewhere long away from DC.
If John McCain had won the election as he was also born on foreign soil in a civilian hospital in Colon, Panama and fails the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship. It was so nice to hear pundits and media bring up this fact /lol.
What’s VERY interesting is that in early 2008 the 3 candidates were already conniving with each other.
February 28 Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) with co-sponsers Barry n Hillary in background attempted Bill S. 2678 Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, to change requirements on the Constitution’s natural born citizenship provision to no avail.
One month later McCaskill is back again w/co-sponsers Barry and Hillary for Resolution 511 declaring John McCain eligible as “both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth...” So — never minding the fact this bill is toilet paper and Barry didn’t even qualify said criteria — why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?
Funny how Hillary get’s Sec of State. The one with nothing to lose…
Usually the question comes up, well if such and such (opposing) campaign and management had this dirt on such and such candidate, why wasn’t it brought up?? Because the whole house of cards would fall.
Everybody’s dirty.
One suggestion that came along in the Fifties and early Sixties was the Court of Union, which was intended to correct the excesses of the Warren Court. The idea was that cases could be appealed from the Supreme Court to a higher court -- the 50 state chief justices meeting en banc as the Court of Union. It was a radical fringe idea that never caught on, but it might be something to explore.
Anything to mitigate the incestuous DC crowd, and throw in the idea from the Fifties of the Super Court too.
>One suggestion that came along in the Fifties and early Sixties was the Court of Union, which was intended to correct the excesses of the Warren Court.
While it _IS_ commendable to try to correct the Warren court’s rulings, it is perilous for us to institute an extra-constitutional court with superior power to the Supreme Court because of this: The Constitution is the ‘Supreme Law of the Land’ and establishes the Supreme Court... thus to weaken/dilute/ignore the term ‘Supreme’ is only hurtful to a Constitutionalist’s point.
>The idea was that cases could be appealed from the Supreme Court to a higher court — the 50 state chief justices meeting en banc as the Court of Union.
The Constitution, Art 3, Sec 1 says, in part:
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 shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So, we can kick a Supreme Court justice out-of-office for violation of “good Behaviour,” lifetime appointment notwithstanding.
Section 3, of the same article, states the definition of treason. In it is included giving aid & comfort to the enemies [of the United States]; therefore, it can be argued that violation of their oath to the Constitution via gross negligence [allowing all manner of extra-Constitutional law, failure to grant citizens standing in ensuring that the Office of President of The United States _IS_ legitimately held, & (IMO, MOST Damning) allowing the Citizen to be denied the right to have the Constitution both “say what it means” and “mean what it says”.]
>It was a radical fringe idea that never caught on, but it might be something to explore.
I’d rather have people reading the Constitution, comprehending it, and demanding that it be applied “as written.” This would pretty much INSTANTLY dissolve federal agencies like the Depts of Energy, Education, Labor, Agriculture... and so forth. {That in itself will cut government expenditures.}
There were plenty of conspiracy theorists on this site for 5 years before you ever signed up, newbie. We didn’t have regulars on the Vince Foster threads all we-weed up over how it made FR look. Then there were those crazies who insisted that Clinton was demanding oral sex from his subordinates, and they were laughed out by yahoos like you. They were right. If we showed more support for people like Gennifer Flowers we wouldn’t have had Clintoon, and the same goes for zer0bama.
They never said that either. They said "natural born citizen" a term they likely got from Vattel. I was just relating what Vattel said it meant, and with the appropriate exemptions. The diplomatic exemption is recognized, even in the interpretation of the 14th amendment, but for diplomats of *other* countries having children in the US.
McCain has faced this issue since before he ran for president the first time. This time his principle legal help came from a firm, Kirkland and Ellis, whose senior partner sat on the Obama campaign committee while another Kirkland Senior Partner, Christopher Landau sat on McCain's “Justice Committee”. One of the legal papers produced to defend McCain, and carrying most of the same arguments used in Sen.Res.511 were available in 2005/2006, written by a young lawyer, Sarah Herlihy, who worked for Kirkland and Ellis. In fact she worked for Christopher Landau, head of McCain's Justice Committee.
Someone in this thread pointed to an Obot site carrying a scurrilous summary of 511. Sen.Res.511 is potpourri of obfuscation and outright lies. They point, as do most Obama defenses, to Wong Kim Ark, which doesn't declare anyone a natural born citizen, and simply clouds the issue by referring to British Common Law, as if it guided our citizenship. Herlihy and 511 carefully avoid John Jay, Ben Franklin, Wilson, Marshall, Madison, Waite, Bingham, etc. etc. Then they repeatedly state that “because John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone", when they know he wasn't, because he provided his birth certificate.
Even well known legal scholars and constitutional lawyers Larry Tribe (Obama’s constitution law professor) and Ted Olson participate, knowing that the U.S. did not have complete jurisdiction in 1936.
Was there a quid-pro-quo? Tribe desperately wants a supreme court appointment, he is 69 or 70, and had some ethics problems himself which would certainly prevent him from being confirmed by a Republican senate. Olson is on both sides. Perhaps someone knows more about him? I was always more impressed with his wife, who was killed in 9/11, than Ted.
More likely, there has been a well-drawn plan to move the U.S. far left of where it has been. Many of the activists, as we all know now, are proud of their card-carrying credentials. Ayers and Dorhn made a good career of it, just like Obama’s buddy Khalidi has made a career of being a mouthpiece for the PLO - all the way to Columbia, and John Holdren took his Marxism from Berkeley to Cape Cod, where he lives well with Theresa Heinz’ money and a title at the Kennedy School at Harvard. This is a conspiracy of the left which may have gone further left than many of its participants anticipated.
What is perfectly clear is that the left wanted to run against John McCain. They helped by providing legally meaningless senate resolutions. McGaskill tried to pass another legally meaningless statute making children of military natural born. She has staffs of lawyers who know a statue can't modify the Constitution. The left wanted McCain and provided the cover for his ineligibility. Why would they do that? Almost certainly they were providing cover to allow them to face McCain. If they didn't have other means of knowing that McCain would be their opponent (See John Fund's book "Stealing Elections"), they had the full support of the media, including FOX.
You are on the right track.
The overthrow of America has been planned with much care and precision, for all that Obama is right now there is a dozen more just like him should he fail or be removed.
McCain was the perfect opponent, and Sarah was supposedly just a dumb hick housewife that could be no threat.
And they dealt with her in spades. She had to go.
The Constitution requires more than mere citizenship to be President. The Founders required that the Presidency be held by someone that was raised by two citizen parents who would teach their child the traditions, History, culture, mores, laws, etc, of America. It is a reasonable requirement for this Lands highest office.
Barack with his Kenyan biological father ( per Dreams of My Father), and Indonesian adopted father, could not have possibly learned what being an American is from the influences of those two male figures in his life.....
Besides, when he accepted a Fulbright Scholarship to attend college as a foreign student he effectively re-affirmed his adoption, and his acceptance of Indonesian citizenship and his rejection of his US citizenship.
The real “Birthers” are Obama supporters that are trying to morph NBC into mere citizenship in the minds of the public......Are you one of those? It appears you are.
Damn you're dumb. That is not my belief and I'd like you to point to where I've ever said it was. If a state believes a law violates the Constitution then challenge it and take it to the Supreme Court. If they're right then the Court will overturn the law and the problem is solved. If the Court rules the law is Constitutional then the states have no choice but comply per the Supremacy Clause in Article VI which you claim to have read. The 9th and 10th Amendments don't enter in to it.
#5,, keep your on the chief justice of the SCOTUS,,,I pedict he’ll sell us out too.
the court of popular opinion-
I love it
the people are more honest than our court system
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.