Posted on 06/25/2005 12:42:58 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
Yep, we're all serfs again.
The Constitution is on its last legs. Basically, it means nothing. I'm sure that the Court will eventually overrule this. It's one of the stupidest decisions in its history. But when it does, it will ensure that the Constitution means even less.
Re: "The last time folks tried that, both sides had muskets and cannon.
This time one side has small arms and the other has Apaches."
I advocate nothing but allow me to point out the Military has Apaches not the courts and not the Congress and for that matter not even the White House. Aside from Generals, and Admirals, who are well connected and have every reason to side with the powers that be they may have even more reason to side with the middle class in the country (the reasons I say this should be obvious) As for all other officers and and the Enlisted they are almost to a man or woman a part of the poor or middle class.
They may be very hesitant to fire on fellow Americans, depending on the issue that has the unwashed out in force with torches and pitchforks.
My first thought is that we should take away the Kerry and Kennedy mansions, and the Clinton mansion.
The House impeaches; the Senate convicts. We have about a 0.00% chance of either happening and that's being kind to the House as compared to the Senate who are in the negatives.
read later. Glad we are still talking about this.
i'm sure this has been considered -- looking over the last 200 years who is considering the possibility that our form/structure of government is seriously flawed when it comes to the courts?
i'm not asking whimsically... is there a group, a think tank, etc. that someone can point me to on articles/discussions along these lines?
our founders may have formed "a more perfect government" but it certainly is showing its weaknesses (i.e. congress standing up to the courts over the constitution).
"The Road to Serfdom"
Best.
Political.
Treatise.
Ever.
/.02
Yes, I realize that the house impeaches, I just got carried away. This decision really irritates the hell out of me. Thanks for the reply, and I also know it will be a cold day in hell before our spineless congress impeaches these jerks.
Actually, I don't think of it as an imperfect system, the mechanisms are there. The problem is, politicians do not have the balls to use the rules they have at their disposal. Take for instance the Senate with the Bolton Nomination. The weak Republican Seven who are trying to look thoughtful are preventing those who would like to force the up or down vote. It's a case of a few whimps preventing the bold action necessary.
I was young and dumb then. I was even a Democrat at that time because my parents were. I changed fast after however. I have matured, in age as well as mentality and I now have nothing to lose. Life itself is worthless unless you have the freedom to enjoy it, something a lot of people don't realize. When I say I will die for the constitution, I mean it. I carry every day, I have a permit, but I will carry if they deny me the permit and if they come to get the guns they will suffer for it even though I will probably die.
This is my creed, my life since about 1984.
I have fought the good fight politically and now I am ready to do the deed physically if need bed.
However, I think we can turn this thing around without violence and I think it can be done with the help of the Dems. They are as upset as we are. Some are stunned about this decision and see that the liberals are the ones who did it. It is amazing the reaction I have seen in my liberal friends( well, maybe not exactly "friends").
Good post.
Supreme Court appointments are often a roll of the dice: two of the five voting with the majority on this decision were David Souter: appointed by George HW Bush and Anthony Kennedy: appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Its often hard to tell in advance how either of them will vote on any particular issue: sometimes they're conservatives, mainly they're moderates and sometimes they're liberals.
Actually, there's a difference between being politically or socially conservative or liberal, versus the judicial definition.
Judicial liberals believe that the Constitution is a living document, and means what they want it to mean. Judicial conservatives believe that the Constitution actually means what it says.
This ruling IS a liberal ruling.
Mark
Two suggestions, hard to implement.
1. The judges have been pressed into making new law since congress makes tons of law, but ignores its mistakes and leaves bad law on the books.
Needed: The Uncongress.
Any computer user has come to learn the utility, yea the necessity of the UNDO button. The human body has scavenger cells that circulate and remove dead tissue. At present the courts have taken over the job of relegislating the law, and are doing a bad job of it, being insulated from popular will. Congress should be repealing bad law. But they are too busy making new law.
Suggestion: The Uncongress. Its members campaign and are elected like congress, but their purpose is not new law, but to repeal remove delete old or bad law. Say any law two years old for which the passage of time has made it clear that the law was not so bright is eligible for uncongress repeal. Congress could reenact the law immediately, and another two years would need to pass before uncongress could remove it.
2. Airline pilots get regularly reexamined as to their intellectual and physical health to make sure they are competent to fly an airplane with many lives aboard.
Require sitting judges to be reconfirmed every 4 or 5 years after age 65. No state issues driver's licences good for life.
I agree; it heartens me that even DU can see the gross injustice of this.
You are 100% correct. Our rulers in both parties are for this. They will do nothing about it unless they have to. The system has passed the point of no return.
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.