Posted on 02/19/2015 3:35:21 AM PST by Bratch
Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.
That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”
That “opinion” has been accepted. The despotism has befallen us. The oligarchy reigns.
[...]
Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
Nonetheless, most conservatives are waiting for the next election or the next court ruling or the next president to right the ship, but they and their republic will die waiting when remedial action can be taken now. Nullification -- when properly exercised, it’s a fancy way of saying “standing up for the law of the land.” Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement -- and become a hero and martyr to millions.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
and this narcissist quota boy was ready to lead the free world?
Punk couldn’t successfully run a shoe shine stand.
Where is the barf alert?
The current POS White House infestation serves as Exhibit A...
We’ve had six years of a president unqualified to be ANYTHING.
A governor is the least of our worries.
If Obama can be president, ANYONE can be president.
Based on the inane responses I doubt that the first few posters read the article....
I read the article and I agree with most of the author’s conclusions.
The libs ignore Federal law when in suits them, maybe it is time for conservatives to do the same.
Might also be time to ignore Marbury vs Madison.
Even Ray Charles can "see" that one is a laugher!
Call me crazy, but it might help if you actually read the article. The title is provocative, as titles often are, but it’s not about what you think.
Are you kidding? Based on the responses, they obviously didn’t even read the first few sentence posted here. It seems they thought they could divine the article’s thesis from the title. And all along I thought only liberals reacted emotionally.
Have you been paying attention to many of the posts on FR lately? Proof-positive that many who identify as Conservatives also react emotionally and with some pretty outre' expectations as they prepare to sell us down the river again while blaming others.
Yes, we wait breathlessly just to find out IF the Supreme Court will hear something, then agonize over the pending decision by the not-impartial, non-political robed ones who were not even elected by US to find out how we get to live our lives. Excellent article. NULLIFICATION, baby!
From the article:
...
History teaches that entities don’t willingly relinquish power; it didn’t happen in 1776
and it won’t happen now. People are generally quite zealous about increasing their
power, though. This returns us to the courts’ usurpations. Do you know where the power of
“judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision —
by the Supreme Court.
That’s right: the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the Supreme Court’s despotic power.
******
....
Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for
the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose
their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the
Founding Fathers intended.
*****
end snips
Eakin v. Raub: The Case Against Judicial Review
He was very wise and prescient about what would happen with Marshall's unconstitutional seizure of judicial power in Marbury.
“Punk couldn’t successfully run a shoe shine stand.”.....
But he sure as hell can destroy an entire country.
Call me crazy but I actually DID read the article. And Amazingly it doesn't even begin to prove the premise in the title. It is about Judicial Review and it is about whether the Governors mentioned would follow the law/Constitution.
Here is something you might consider. There is no prerequisite that requires a Presidential Candidate to qualify for the office in which following the law while he is a Governor is mandatory.
See the Constitution is pretty self explanatory on who is Qualified to be President. Its why the title AND the Article is a laugher. Just because the article comes from a supposedly Conservative publication does not make it canon of the Conservative movement AND bad writing is bad writing. If you want to be taken seriously then don't title an article with a premise that you don't being to prove with the following article.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Exactly. But the Title is misleading and apparently many posters are too lazy to read past the Title!
As to the second-
the “general government” so gleans the wealth of every state unto itself
and threatens the states with not returning that wealth to them if they don’t comply with undelegated proclamations.
The way to accomplish this nullification will have to include the abolishment or interception of federal withholding taxes on the people of the state,
and the promise to protect them from the feds for doing so.
Qualified as in character; courage; conviction; virtue.
Often sought. Seldom found.
None of these are specified in the Constitution, but certainly presumed....as are most of our common law and natural rights and duties the Founders knew were a prerequisite for a functioning republic.
The author points out several things, such as sanctuary cities, Colorado dope laws, etc., where the socialists and decadents ignore rule of law to advance their perversity in a manner I had not considered.
Author’s point being that any current governor who on bended knee conforms to the clawing evil of the DC Imperium, lacks these qualifications of “leadership”.
Now as to his closing,
“Nonetheless, most conservatives are waiting for the next election or the next court ruling or the next president to right the ship, but they and their republic will die waiting when remedial action can be taken now. Nullification — when properly exercised, it’s a fancy way of saying “standing up for the law of the land.” Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement — and become a hero and martyr to millions.
It’s waiting there for you, governors, glory and God’s work. We just need a leader, someone with greater passions for principle than “for party, for power.” It’s waiting.
Rise, American hero, rise.”
Now who on this site would argue with that?
Though I note that Selwyn Duke has posted a self-promoting linked post to another site!
A heinous violation of Freep tribal law.
I stand heartbroken again by a fallen idol.
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.