Posted on 11/22/2015 6:22:37 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Article II Section 2 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.
Congress needs to make exceptions. Ones I favor:
Clarification of 9th and 10th Amendment.
States shall issue birth and death certificates at their discretion. The Federal government, including all branches, has no jurisdiction in the matters of birth and death, except in the Armed Forces overseas, and in overseas embassies.
I would say at this point, yes. Our federal system is in ruins- Supreme Court decisions can make a mockery out of the legislative process at the state level, as revealed by the Obergefell decision, which rendered the exercise of the franchise useless. The legislative branch at the Federal level has signally failed to hold accountable a lawless chief executive who selectively enforces laws and whose foreign policy serves the interests of foreign powers who are in fact our enemies. Our political system is largely based on passing power between two political parties that mostly exist to channel money out of the public treasury into the pockets of their supporters, or else to create policies that give their business interests greater profits without regard to the interests of the public as a whole.
I disagree.
Those few words he spoke at Gettysburg were and are immortal.
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
___
When the supremes deviate from the above-mentioned instruction, their decrees should rightly be ignored.
While, sadly, you may be right, that isn’t necessary. We still retain more than sufficient power to solve the problem completely peacefully.
I am reminded of the wise words of a famous Britain on the subject:
“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
— Winston Churchill
Amen.
I’ve said it before many times, and I’ll say it again: Unless and until we learn to tell the judges to go to hell, we cannot possibly save the republic.
Well, there’s no reason we have to continue down that path to national destruction, is there?
1. There's a presumptuous arrogance surrounding the idea that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not only practical, but ideal. Maybe that's true, but I'm not sure the historical evidence will reflect that as time goes on.
2. Related to that point, it's important to note that this country was not founded as a democracy. Nor was it founded as a place where "the people" (as we understand this today) had any role whatsoever in their own governance. Very few people in the U.S. even had the right to vote in the early days of this country. I decided to do a quick review of a random presidential election in the first few decades of this nation's history, and the numbers tell the story very clearly. There were about six million people living in the U.S. in 1804, but fewer than 150,000 votes were cast in the election that year when Thomas Jefferson was elected as our third president.
The second point I've made here suggests that this country was always intended by the Founders to be much closer to an oligarchy than to a democracy anyway.
I don’t think either an oligarchy or a democracy was intended. We have many words from the founders to that effect.
What was intended was a REPUBLIC, of, by, and for the people, premised in the laws of nature and nature’s God.
But the thing is: they are there and they rule against the wishes of the voters. They use their own internal liberal feelings to rule on law.
Only because we allow it to be so.
So, tell me, how do you get a judge reversed or removed? These are federally appointed judges. When has any one of them been removed by the voice of the people. Remember that CA judge that ruled against homosexual whatever over the votes of the people? He was gay himself.
Hitler's words are also immortal. Do you have a point other than the immortality of words spoken by tyrants?
In the DemoKKKrats AmeriKKKa?
Yes.
No. Hitler’s words were not immortal, because, unlike Lincoln’s words, they were not true or right.
Well, actually, those folks are a tiny minority.
If the majority, or even a decent plurality of decent people, would simply get their act together, we would crush the Left like the bugs they are.
Noting about truth in the definition of immortal, which, by the way, disHonest Abe knew very little about.
Try again.
Yup, that’s him. Old Abe was the Alpha Chamber of Commerce cheerleader.
Lincoln’s level of disregard of the constitution was and is breathtaking. The rhetoric he spouted at Gettysburg is no different as that sodomite in the whitehouse.
Notwithstanding your obvious hatred for Lincoln, the truths of this post, and the importance of the subject matter, are overriding.
Because the poison of the lie of judicial supremacy is destroying the country..
This is a perfect opportunity for you to exercise your rebel spirit, against the judicial usurpers of the legitimate powers of the people.
Aim your arrows at them, not at those who are fighting them.
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.