Posted on 07/24/2023 5:07:09 AM PDT by Red Badger
Beginning in the 1820s, Georgia began a campaign to exterminate the Cherokee Nation by force and removal. The state annexed Cherokee land, and Georgia led the way in pressuring Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act.
A minister by the name of Samuel Worcester was ministering on Cherokee land. Georgia eventually passed laws that made it “illegal” for whites to live on Cherokee land and extended Georgia’s territory into Cherokee land. Worcester didn’t leave. He and others were arrested by Georgia “police” and sentenced to four years of hard labor.
He appealed his sentence, and the US Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s extension laws in Worchester v Georgia.
Writing for the majority, John Marshall opined that the Indian nations were “distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights.” Marshall declared that the Cherokee were a nation inside the nation and that treaties were signed protecting those rights. Marshall said that the Cherokee had the right to live where they chose.
But President Jackson disagreed. Urban myth has Jackson saying: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” What he actually said was just as tyrannical: “The decision of the supreme court has fell stillborn, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”
By refusing to enforce what the Supreme Court found unconstitutional, Jackson was the first president to act as a proxy king. He refused to abide by a Supreme Court decision.
In an op/ed published in The Hill on Saturday, Jonathan Turley has again raised his voice to point out that if the left got its way, we would be in the grips of tyranny. We are creeping dangerously close to witnessing a president acting as a proxy king and, like Jackson did 185 years ago, simply ignoring the court and refusing to enforce the constitution he swore to protect and defend. Turley writes:
In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation.
The use of the affirmative action case is ironic, since polls have consistently shown that the majority of the public does not support the use of race in college admissions. Indeed, even in the most liberal states, such as California, voters have repeatedly rejected affirmative action in college admissions. Polls further show that a majority support the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.
America cannot function unless the three branches of government operate as they were intended. Congress passes laws, and if they comport to constitutional mandate, they are enforced by the executive branch. If they are not constitutional, the Supreme Court must strike down those laws, and the executive branch is mandated to abide by those decisions. What the president cannot do is simply act as a proxy king and ignore the Supreme Court.
Yet, here we are. That is what men like Tushnet and Belkin want and why they are dangerous. It isn’t just their opinions that are dangerous; it is their wacky call for tyranny to go mainstream and be disseminated and taught to others as an acceptable means to an end. Less than three years ago, Donald Trump was president, and men like Tushnet and Belkin were calling Trump a tyrant. Yet they clamor for a president they “like” to act as one, to be a dictator without a moment of reflection. If a modern president acts like Andrew Jackson and simply ignores the court and, thus, the Constitution, we would no longer be a republic; we would be ruled by a tyrant.
But Biden has already done that. Turley illustrated how Biden has already ignored the Supreme Court and ignored the advice of legal experts. He searched for and found a palace court jester willing to tell him what he wanted to hear.
America is on the edge of a cliff. We are in an actual constitutional crisis. One caused by a cabal of palace partisans who want to abandon the Constitution, but only when it suits them. They have told a doddering would-be king what he wants to hear, and he has listened.
Turley closed with:
This is what Tushnet has advocated in “taking the Constitution away from the courts.” Once the courts are removed from constitutionalism, however, we will be left where we began centuries ago: with the fleeting satisfaction of popular justice.
And tyranny.
Jackson & Van Buren godfathers of the dimocRAT party! Their evil DNA infects every dimocRAT alive today.
Thanks.
The Cherokee story is here:
Jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com
And history is repeating itself.
“Washington was born into the slavery culture. Being an activist would have been unbecoming. However It’s clear from historical documents that Washington took a firm stance against slavery as he increased in age. Jackson, OTOH created a political party to defend and enshrine the institution of slavery.”
I hesitate to challenge your thinking on this.
Both Jackson and Washington were born into slave owning times. Both died owning slaves.
The United States Constitution - the one President Washington took an oath to protect and defend - enshrined slavery.
If you don’t like President Jackson, fine.
But to exclude him from the pantheon because he choose to be born during times of slavery would mean excluding a lot of people in the past 6,000 years.
Conservatives are no better than Left wing authoritarians when they want to act in ways, with the laws, where the ends justify the means.
We, Conservatives, were right in fighting so long to get the federal court system out of dictating abortion “rights” and policies from the bench. Returning that issue to the democratic processes in the states was the right thing and should be left that way.
We need, in everyway possible, for less federal law that makes the federal government the national policeman. Making the federal government even more of a national policeman, to serve “Conservative” positions, will in the long run merely strengthen federal power over everything, and will come back to bite Conservatives in the ass, hard.
That could pave the way to get Trump on the $20 bill!
They’re inciting rebellion and insurrection.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
“Yes, but on which side?.................”
Well with only a little over maybe 100 Congress and Senate combined that are fighting the good fight, our odds of survival are slim to none, so whichever side we fall on it will not be the same as before.
The Communist have practically taken over every institution we have. We were warned in the 40’s and 50’s and those warnings were ignored and now they have taken over not just Hollywood where it basically grew up and spread all over America, they are in control of higher education, most of the Judicial system, most of the news media and now the government. They accomplished all of this without firing a single shot.
Who can stop them now? I hope nobody is counting on the Republican Party to save us after all the times they have failed to fight, but please keep sending them money and voting for them like a bunch of sheep which, sadly, a lot of this country has become.
So again I ask the question, who will stop them now?
https://cultureshield.com/PDF/45_Goals.pdf
https://www.truthandaction.org/plan-destroy-america-richard-d-lamm/
He is President Trump’s hero.
Jackson utterly destroyed the deep state of his day.
“ If they are not constitutional, the Supreme Court must strike down those laws, and the executive branch is mandated to abide by those decisions.”
What is the evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended, in Article III, to grant such a power to the Supreme Court?
In reality, the Supreme Court has no power. Their role was never defined by the founders, so that any ‘power’ they might have is solely dependent upon the Executive Branch to enforce and the People to obey....................
There are statements in the Declaration of Independence reflecting similar behavior.
Just imagine how the run up to the crisis and war would have been reported if the participants had access to present day technology:
“Texts indicate King George III is being advised to refuse implementation of new laws in Virginia.”
“Emails between Crown officials and tribal chieftains discuss desire for increased violent raids against colonist homes and settlements on the western frontier.”
“Elections for the colonial legislature are again postponed according to a new posting on Crown Gazette website.”
“On (popular social media website), academics at Harvard now claim Freedom of Speech is not a right when it offends the Crown’s dignity, authority and prerogatives to legislate or administer colonial activities.”
“Recently disclosed emails reveal academics are meeting with the Governor General and advising him to refuse to acknowledge recent unfavorable Crown supreme judicial court rulings and, instead, to implement the laws he personally favors.”
They would be at the top of the list in a counter-revolution, and that's exactly where ignoring the Constitution would go, in a heartbeat. *spit*
Tushnet is defective, he has -- wait for it -- TDS about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
This dipshit tried to spike the ball in the end zone for Cankles in May of 2016, and he got pwnd!
"Tushnet blames what he calls the “culture wars” on conservatives, and he says liberals should now make conservatives pay. “The culture wars are over; they lost, we won,” he writes in italics.Tushnet claims that conservatives “had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy.”
FU, you short stumpy schnorrer.
“Guaranteed Mark Tushnet is a subversive/degenerate talmudic jew.”
Married to a shiksah. Subversive? Check. Talmudic Jew? Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Tushnet
Tushnet is Jewish, and he married his wife Elizabeth Alexander at a Methodist Church.[22] She is currently a Unitarian[23]...
Jesse Watters just gave professional background info on these profs. One isn’t a lawyer. He has political science degree, and his big claim to fame is book on toxic masculinity in armed forces. Other prof is into gender studies (I think - kinda forgotten).
Snowflake leftist law professors (in name only) overcompensating for their own mental weakness and espousing tyranny? Well, isn’t that special....
proxy king
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.