Skip to comments.
Republican Party Hack Lisa Murkowski Fails Constitutional Law (Miller/Murkowski Debate Included)
Conservatives4Palin ^
| Saturday, August 21, 2010
| Ian Lazaran
Posted on 08/21/2010 1:31:24 AM PDT by onyx
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
1
posted on
08/21/2010 1:31:28 AM PDT
by
onyx
To: Eska; Species8472; alaskanfan; strongbow; GATOR NAVY; BlueMoose; AlaskaErik; ArmyTeach; ...
Thank you, Eska, for telling me about the debate!
Maybe someone will find find the entire video! I'll look now.
2
posted on
08/21/2010 1:34:43 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Sarah/Michele 2012)
To: Syncro; NYpeanut; TitansAFC; NeoCaveman; el_texicano; Liberty Valance; HoneysuckleTN; itssme; ...
SARAH PALIN PING LIST "ping"
and syncro
3
posted on
08/21/2010 1:40:57 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Sarah/Michele 2012)
To: onyx
In fairness the American legal profession IE lawyers is more about learning how to get around Constitutional law then it is about enforcing/applying constitutional law.
So I wouldn’t ask a lawyer to interpret the constitution as they will give you a bunch of court rulings that undermined the same constitution in favor of the power of the courts and the government thus by extension the lawyers that uses and dominate them.
This is not to say that there are not honest folk out there who happen to be lawyers by trade, its simply pointing out that the nature of their profession disinclines them to give an answer which is respectful of the reserved rights of the people.(including the right to self-government and State Constitutional government)
To: Monorprise
“starie decisis” shouldn’t apply to interpretation of the Constitution, not after the liberals have sat on SCOTUS.
5
posted on
08/21/2010 2:58:16 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Sarah/Michele 2012)
To: Monorprise
I meant to post, “shouldn’t ALWAYS apply”
6
posted on
08/21/2010 3:00:13 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Sarah/Michele 2012)
To: Monorprise
So the professors made them do it? Yea, right. It takes a fair amount of active grey matter between the ears just to get to the point of being accepted to law school and we are to accept they don’t have the cognicent reasoning capabilities when reading the Consititution as we simpleton rubes seem to have been graced with?
A pox on them all as far as I am concerned. Career politician lawyers on both sides played on our good will and trust in their knowledge of training. That is the reason we are in the mess we find ourselves and I will always support an outsider non-legal type before I ever will the opposite.
My estimation is the civil legal arena has become nothing more than a life suppport system for attorneys and in many cases the same goes for criminal legal defense attorneys as well. They advance up to be a judge in the very courtrooms they made their alliances and the wheel keeps going round and round.
7
posted on
08/21/2010 3:09:00 AM PDT
by
mazda77
(Rubio for US Senate - West FL22nd - Hayworth for US Senate - Scott for FL Gov.)
To: Monorprise
"This is not to say that there are not honest folk out there who happen to be lawyers by trade.." Thinnist book in the library-"The American Bar Association Listing of Honest Lawyers"
8
posted on
08/21/2010 3:11:45 AM PDT
by
101voodoo
To: mazda77
Wiki “Public Choice Theory”, and the name, James M. Buchanan.
9
posted on
08/21/2010 3:21:12 AM PDT
by
Leisler
("Over time they create a legal system that plunders and a moral code that glorifies it." F. Bastiat)
To: onyx
10
posted on
08/21/2010 3:36:25 AM PDT
by
gakrak
To: gakrak
11
posted on
08/21/2010 3:42:24 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Sarah/Michele 2012)
To: onyx
12
posted on
08/21/2010 3:49:21 AM PDT
by
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
To: Monorprise
In fairness the American legal profession ...With respect you you...you lost me right there.
There can be no "fairness" with respect the "legal profession." There is no "fair" in a courtroom. Its the law as it is being interpreted.
Only what is legal as defined by the U.S. Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Being fair with a lawyer is akin to assisted suicide...and much more expensive.
13
posted on
08/21/2010 3:57:45 AM PDT
by
Tainan
(Cogito, ergo conservatus)
To: onyx
The Federal Constitution expressly provides for the federal government to create a federal military and defend the country. Article I, section 8 expressly conveys to Congress the "power" to "declare war" and "raise and support armies" as well as a "navy"
Actually that's only partially correct with respect to the Army. The passage states: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
14
posted on
08/21/2010 4:40:10 AM PDT
by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
To: Tainan
Being fair with a lawyer is akin to assisted suicide...and much more expensive.
Careful with the blanket statement. My father has been an attorney for 56 years. There isn't a more honest person or fair person.
15
posted on
08/21/2010 4:42:50 AM PDT
by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
To: 101voodoo
LOL, that’s second the first is Honest Politicians.
16
posted on
08/21/2010 5:01:04 AM PDT
by
Paco
To: Paco
Maybe, but aren’t many politicians also lawyers?
To: Man50D; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan
raise and support armies
That is not the same as saying that Congress must have an entity called "The Army".
A lower case "a" "armies" is a word that means "land-based fighting force."
The US Constituiton gives Congress the authority to have both land-based and sea-based fighting forces, and the overall point is that Congress has the responsibility and authority to provide for the nation's defense.
Murkowski's point is ignorant, in that there is no parallel with abortion. Where is anyone given an approximate authority such as to "provide for birth" or "obstetrical care" or anything close that could then be used to "provide for abortions"?
18
posted on
08/21/2010 5:04:08 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
To: onyx; All
The link below goes to Anti-federalist #17 by BRUTUS, a.k.a New York lawyer and Founding Father
Robert Yates, who must have had a very clear crystal ball considering that everything he predicted has come to pass.
Mark Levin read excerpts from it last night and engaged in a running commentary. Well worth reading!
Anti-Federalist #17
To: onyx
I hope she gets her clock cleaned.
20
posted on
08/21/2010 6:24:46 AM PDT
by
Tribune7
(The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson