United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Police Celebrate 4th Of July With Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/po ... ationwide-refusal-checkpoints/
Published: Jul 4, 2015
Author: John Vibes
Post Date: 2015-07-04 10:46:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 62531
Comments: 141
Happy 4th of July, the day where Americans celebrate imaginary freedom, and police departments nationwide make millions of dollars violating the rights of nonviolent individuals. Under the pretense of catching drunk drivers, police will be patrolling the streets and setting up checkpoints all over the country this weekend. In some cases they will arrest drunk drivers, in others they will search and arrest nonviolent drug offenders, while other people may get citations for problems with their vehicle or registration. Especially for people who haven’t even done anything wrong, these checkpoints are a gross violation of privacy and other natural born rights. Free people should not be stopped and searched or questioned in any way if they are attempting to travel freely. However, we sadly now live in a world where rights like traveling are seen as privileges, to be given and taken by government. As it stands right now, the way that the state deals with drunk driving is tyrannical and infringes upon everyone’s rights, even people like myself, who hardly ever drink. Economist Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article on this subject and discussed the problems with the status quo while offering some solutions as well. Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime. And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue. If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn’t matter if it’s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway. Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum. There is no doubt that drunk driving should be discouraged and that solutions to prevent people from driving drunk should be explored. However, it is entirely possible to do this without violating anyone’s rights in the process. Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual. John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: CZ82, nolu chan (#37)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond President Adams famously said "Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" regarding the Dept of Interior requiring Preachers to obtain a permit to evangelize on Indian reservations. None were ever busted for preaching to Indians without buying a permit, the SCOTUS decision was just ignored. The supremes gave themselves the power to determine constitutionality of legislation in Marbury v Madison. The SCOTUS was supposed to be for disputes between the States.
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final. They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings. The supremes have zero enforcement powers for their edicts.
All a president needs is a pen and an Obama phone, eh? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The constitution and a dictionary. I know it would require honest people. So all liberals would be disqualified.
Your attribution is incorrect. The correct president was Andrew Jackson and the story is quite possibly apocryphal. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html
I had to look in the dictionary for that one.
So under your concept, a cop and a perp will argue it out at the DUI check point.
It's the local lawless thug cop who delivers tyranny to your door. Pens and phones are inanimate objects. They could never throw a flashbang into a babies crib, or shoot a 4 year old out of fear for "officer safety". Ogongo's goons on the local PD perform those type of functions.
Tell that to the folks under Obamacare. Tell that to the folks who oppose gay marriage. You live in a make believe world....wake up. You are now quibbling....stop it.
Wait just a minute! You first said SCOTUS has no power to determine constitutionality. Now you say they have the power because they gave it to themselves. Which is it? Do they, or do they not, have the power?
both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision. Ooops, brain fart. That's the important part. SCOTUS rulings are not necessarily "the law". The three branches of government are not supposed to rubber stamp each others actions. Unfortunately there is almost no disagreement between the branches these days. A sure sign of a corrupted system. It's a good 'ol boys 'n girls club, where everyone looks the other way as America dies. It pays well though.
This seems to be an argument about terminology. Court opinions are considered final when there is no further possibility of judicial proceedings upon the case in the issuing court unless it is reversed or set aside by a higher court. SCOTUS opinions cannot be appealed to a higher court. They are considered final. The holding can always be overturned by a ruling in a subsequent case or by a change in the law it relied upon. That does not change the final opinion in a prior case, but changes the court's interpretation of a legal point, and sets a new precedent. The 13th Amendment did not change the final opinion in Dred Scott but changed the law, invalidating Scott as binding precedent based upon a law that no longer exists. The SCOTUS opinion is final, but the legal issue may be revisited and a new opinion may set a new precedent. The opinion is final but the holding may be challenged in subsequent cases.
SCOTUS holdings are considered the law. SCOTUS does not enforce the law where others choose to ignore or violate the law. A lawless executive does not make a SCOTUS holding any less obligatory. It just makes the executive a law breaker.
Tell the rest of the story.
It's the polite way of saying somebody probably made it up and it has been repeated so many times it has assumed a life of its own, but is untraceable to the purported source, usually some historical figure.
Don't be a Deckard. You're the one that espouses that any group, faction or president can disregard any law, ruling or case law you don't like. So who's the "lawless thug"? If the USSC ruled against Obamacare, don't you think O'bunghole would have acted just like you do with drug laws? He would have said, "fuck that, I don't need to listen to the USSC... I'm the most important fucker I know". Would you have agreed with it, dummy? It doesn't really matter what you think, Hondo. Contrary to your self important liberal nature, you ain't the most important person you know. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Ah, but the judgments by the Supreme Court are virtually final. Their decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken. If you are suggesting that they need not be obeyed, then you are entirely wrong.
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate. You'd better check in with Acorn HQ for the latest talking points bulletin, this stuff you're coming up with is WEAK.
You had better learn to read.... When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution. Do you know of another way?
Direct Action. The federal cattle rustlers left, and the livestock was recovered. Jury nullification has been used extensively as well, particularly just prior to the amendment repealing prohibition. If you can't get a conviction on a so called "law" then it in effect doesn't exist, even though it's on the books. Mass civil disobedience works. Like Ghandi, but USA style... armed to the teeth.
That is only precisely accurate when SCOTUS rules on a constitutional issue. If it is ruling on a statute, its opinion may be overturned by a change in statute law. It may seem picky, but its worth keeping in mind.
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree. But I'd rather go this route. Don't they also have the option to limit the jurisdiction of the so called supreme court.
But I'd rather go this route. Don't they also have the option to limit the jurisdiction of the so called supreme court. The Legislature has attempted to pass laws contrary to Roe. SCOTUS plays whack-a-mole striking them down. The appellate jurisdiction case is Ex Parte McCardle. The case was fully argued and taken under advisement. Jurisdiction was withdrawn, preventing any opinion from being issued. http://supreme.justia.com/us/74/506/case.html Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 506 506 (1868) Ex parte McCardle 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is conferred by the Constitution, and not derived from acts of Congress, but is conferred "with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress may make," and, therefore, acts of Congress affirming such jurisdiction have always been construed as excepting from it all cases not expressly described and provided for. 2. When, therefore, Congress enacts that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of the Circuit Courts in certain cases, the act operates as a negation or exception of such jurisdiction in other cases, and the repeal of the act necessarily negatives jurisdiction under it of these cases also. 3. The repeal of such an act, pending an appeal provided for by it, is not an exercise of judicial power by the legislature, no matter whether the repeal takes effect before or after argument of the appeal. 4. The act of 27th March, 1868, repealing that provision of the act of 5th of February, 1867, to amend the Judicial Act of 1789, which authorized appeals to this court from the decisions of the Circuit Courts in cases of habeas corpus, does not except from the appellate jurisdiction of this 74 U. S. 507 court any cases but appeals under the act of 1867. It does not affect the appellate jurisdiction which was previously exercised in cases of habeas corpus. The case was this: The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows: "§ 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." "§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States," &c. And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that, "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." With these constitutional provisions in existence, Congress, on the 5th February, 1867, by "An act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, approved September 24, 1789," provided that the several courts of the United States, and the several justices and judges of such courts, within their respective jurisdiction, in addition to the authority already conferred by law, should have power to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States. And that, from the final decision of any judge, justice, or court inferior to the Circuit Court, appeal might be taken to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district in which the cause was heard, and from the judgment of the said Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States. This statute being in force, one McCardle, alleging unlawful restraint by military force, preferred a petition in the court below, for the writ of habeas corpus. 74 U. S. 508 The writ was issued, and a return was made by the military commander admitting the restraint, but denying that it was unlawful. It appeared that the petitioner was not in the military service of the United States, but was held in custody by military authority for trial before a military commission upon charges founded upon the publication of articles alleged to be incendiary and libelous, in a newspaper of which he was editor. The custody was alleged to be under the authority of certain acts of Congress. Upon the hearing, the petitioner was remanded to the military custody, but, upon his prayer, an appeal was allowed him to this court, and upon filing the usual appeal bond, for costs, he was admitted to bail upon recognizance, with sureties conditioned for his future appearance in the Circuit Court, to abide by and perform the final judgment of this court. The appeal was taken under the above-mentioned act of February 5, 1867. A motion to dismiss this appeal was made at the last term, and, after argument, was denied. [1] Subsequently, on the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 9th March, the case was argued very thoroughly and ably upon the merits, and was taken under advisement. While it was thus held, and before conference in regard to the decision proper to be made, an act was passed by Congress, [2] returned with objections by the President, and, on the 27th March, repassed by the constitutional majority, the second section of which was as follows: "And be it further enacted, That so much of the act approved February 5, 1867, entitled 'An act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, approved September 24, 1789,' as authorized an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, or the exercise of any such jurisdiction by said Supreme Court, on appeals which have been, or may hereafter be taken, be, and the same is hereby repealed. " 74 U. S. 509 The attention of the court was directed to this statute at the last term, but counsel having expressed a desire to be heard in argument upon its effect, and the Chief Justice being detained from his place here by his duties in the Court of Impeachment, the cause was continued under advisement. Argument was now heard upon the effect of the repealing act. 74 U. S. 512 THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The first question necessarily is that of jurisdiction, for if the act of March, 1868, takes away the jurisdiction defined by the act of February, 1867, it is useless, if not improper, to enter into any discussion of other questions. It is quite true, as was argued by the counsel for the petitioner, that the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not derived from acts of Congress. It is, strictly speaking, conferred 74 U. S. 513 by the Constitution. But it is conferred "with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make." It is unnecessary to consider whether, if Congress had made no exceptions and no regulations, this court might not have exercised general appellate jurisdiction under rules prescribed by itself. For among the earliest acts of the first Congress, at its first session, was the act of September 24th, 1789, to establish the judicial courts of the United States. That act provided for the organization of this court, and prescribed regulations for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The source of that jurisdiction, and the limitations of it by the Constitution and by statute, have been on several occasions subjects of consideration here. In the case of Durousseau v. The United States [3] particularly, the whole matter was carefully examined, and the court held that, while "the appellate powers of this court are not given by the judicial act, but are given by the Constitution," they are, nevertheless, "limited and regulated by that act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject." The court said further that the judicial act was an exercise of the power given by the Constitution to Congress "of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court." "They have described affirmatively," said the court, "its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it." The principle that the affirmation of appellate jurisdiction implies the negation of all such jurisdiction not affirmed having been thus established, it was an almost necessary consequence that acts of Congress, providing for the exercise of jurisdiction, should come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to the constitutional grant of it. The exception to appellate jurisdiction in the case before us, however, is not an inference from the affirmation of other 74 U. S. 514 appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the act of 1867 affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception. We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution, and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words. What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and, when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle. Several cases were cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the position that jurisdiction of this case is not affected by the repealing act. But none of them, in our judgment, affords any support to it. They are all cases of the exercise of judicial power by the legislature, or of legislative interference with courts in the exercising of continuing jurisdiction. [4] On the other hand, the general rule, supported by the best elementary writers, [5] is that, "when an act of the legislature is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions past and closed, as if it never existed." And the effect of repealing acts upon suits under acts repealed has been determined by the adjudications of this court. The subject was fully considered in Norris v. Crecker, [6] and more recently in Insurance Company v. Ritchie. [7] In both of these cases, it was held that no judgment could be rendered in a suit after the repeal of the act under which it was brought and prosecuted. 74 U. S. 515 It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal, and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer. Counsel seem to have supposed, if effect be given to the repealing act in question, that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied. But this is an error. The act of 1868 does not except from that jurisdiction any cases but appeals from Circuit Courts under the act of 1867. It does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised. [8] The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. [1] See Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace 318. [2] Act of March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at Large 44. [3] 10 U. S. 6 Cranch 312; Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dallas 321. [4] Lanier v. Gallatas, 13 Louisiana Annual 175; De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 15 Pennsylvania State 18; The State v. Fleming, 7 Humphreys 152; Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenleaf 326. [5] Dwarris on Statutes 538. [6] 54 U. S. 13 Howard 429. [7] 72 U. S. 5 Wallace 541. [8] Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace 324.
Do you know of another way? Direct Action. Cite the law SCOTUS declared unconstitutional here. We are discussing SCOTUS and constitutionality.
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate. When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, my statement: Is correct....right?
I have a strong feeling Cliven Bundy is not off the hook. "Cliven Bundy has had multiple court orders to remove his cattle from federal public lands and he has not paid his grazing fees and he has not abided by the law," Jewell told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "We will continue to pursue that." Speaking ahead of her appearance at the Western Governors' Association meeting in Incline Village, Nev., earlier this week, the Obama administration official refused to put a deadline on any action, however, the newspaper reports. "The wheels of justice move at their own pace," Jewell said. "I am confident this issue is going to be appropriately resolved." Edit Add: Cliven Bundy is worried about one of his supporters. The recalcitrant Nevada rancher, who has waged a running battle of words and lawsuits with the federal government over public lands, made a phone call to an out-of-state supporter facing prison time over comments he made in support of the newly christened tea party folk hero. Pennsylvania resident Will Michael, 24, pleaded guilty last month in federal court to threatening a Bureau of Land Management official as well as making interstate communication threats during Bundy's 2014 standoff with federal officials over land grazing rights.
Jefferson also wrote that nullification — states’ ignoring of federal dictates — is the “rightful remedy” for all central-government usurpation of states’ powers. Of course, this includes plainly unconstitutional rulings by oligarchic federal courts. States have recourse to the “rightful remedy” of nullification because the Constitution reserves most powers to the states, and the states are not bound to follow unconstitutional federal edicts. In fact, in order to adhere to the Constitution, state are duty bound not to enforce such edicts, but to declare them null and void at the state border. nolu chan erroneously claims: -- Stone correctly disagrees. -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are null and void from enactment...
In nolu chans defense. I believe him to be stating the way it is actually working right now. Not what we wish or the way we think it should be.
nolu chan erroneously claims: -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are, or can be declared to be, null and void from enactment... Chan and I recently had a discussion on just that point, and I came away with the opposite impression: -- that for some reason, he wants the SCOTUS to have the final say on what is constitutional..
Stone correctly disagrees. -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are null and void from enactment... In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress." Fro the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd. When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says. The Judicial Branch is not some superfluous body which issues irrelevant opinions for all to ignore.
Chan and I recently had a discussion on just that point, and I came away with the opposite impression: -- that for some reason, he wants the SCOTUS to have the final say on what is constitutional.. Chan claims: --- -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are, and can be declared, null and void from enactment... Yep, that's what that part of the constitution says.. In Article VI it says that only laws made "in pursuance thereof", (of the constitution), -"shall be the supreme law of the land." It's absurd to you, granted. But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause. Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. I've never claimed it was..
Nor would I try. Under the supremacy clause, the first listed is the Constitution, and it is the paramount law, the expression of the will of the people by which they created the government in all its branches, and it is superior to any other law in the land. The Executive must obey it, the Legislature can only legislate pursuant to it, and the Judicial cannot overrule it or strike it down, in whole or in part—the concept is an absurdity. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Steven F. Gifis Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 176-77 (1803) Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject. As far as I know, the court of tpaine does not hold appellate jurisdiction over SCOTUS, nor does any government authority. The Constitution is our "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." Misconstruing the supremacy clause does not overturn 2+ centuries of legal precedent.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. And nothing you just posted refutes my position. -- As usual you are posting long winded opinions I have no problem with, as if they proved your position. -- They don't.
So you are saying the constitution is flawed. That there is no remedy when 9 Supreme Court Judges lie and say the constitution means one thing when in basic English it clearly says something different.
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point. Nolu Chans argument in my view is that there needs to be some check on the President and congress from making laws that are contrary to the constitution. Which is reasonable. But since we are imperfect people and liars and thieves and on the take. Since that is the case we are going to get incorrect and even evil decisions. We are then stuck with these decisions. That people with common sense know are lies and incorrect. The evil among us are fine to lie and say that yes that is what the Constitution says. They know they are lying but will not admit it. Then there are the ignorant which are on both sides. Tpaine doesn't like this. He recognizes that the Supreme Court and its functions aren't prescribed in the constitution. Nolu Chan on the other hand wants the same thing as you. He wants them to follow the constitution. So he sees it as a court has to make a determination. A court ruled in the Marberry vs Madisoin case. He accepts this as he sees that there is a need for there to be some authority to check the laws and strike them down if they are contrary to the constitution. So Chan sees it as the courts are set up by the constitution and ruled and that is that. Even if it is not directly mentioned in the constitution. You see it as they ruled incorrectly and when the Supreme Court gets it wrong you legitimately get pissed and point out that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority. I'm sure Tpaine also thinks that there should be some check. But he thinks they should just follow it. He knows what it is, what it says and they better do it. If the Supreme Court gets it wrong the President has the right to ignore it and do what the constitution says. That is fine and I kind of agree with it. But the problem with that is the President could lie and just ignore the constitution also. So maybe as men we can't make a perfect system, and since we have liars and pieces of crap because our values have broken down. Also because people were always corrupt. So maybe that's is what who was it Benjamin Franklin said it was a system made for morale and religious people. You know people that are honest and do what the constitution said and didn't lie to subvert it for whatever purpose.
And nothing you just posted refutes my position. -- As usual you are posting long winded opinions I have no problem with, as if they proved your position. -- They don't. You just have a basic misunderstanding of the law and do not know what you are talking about. You can not and never have cited any legal authority that the judiciary can strike down a constitutional amendment or any other part of the Constitution. Your position continues to be absurd.
No. The assertion that a constitutional amendment, or any part of the Constitution, can be struck down by the judiciary, or that anyone is free to legally ignore any part of the Constitution, continues to be an unsupportable legal absurdity.
There is always a check. If the people think the court has erred in constitutional interpretation, they can amend the Constitution to overturn the holding of the Court. If the Congress thinks the Court has erred in statutory interpretation, Congress can just write another law, overturning what the Court has held. Everyone ignoring all but his or her own notion of the Constitution is not a check, it is anarchy.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. I've cited the constitution itself, and you cannot refute its words. Your opinion is noted, and the fact that the best 'proof' you can cite is to call Stone and I absurd....
Comments (81 - 141) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHolding
Police may not conduct roadblocks "whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." Such roadblocks must have a specific primary purpose, such as keeping roadways safe from impaired drivers, or enforcing border security.
#42. To: Gatlin (#39)
(Edited)
It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter.
#43. To: hondo68 (#42)
They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings.
#44. To: Gatlin (#40)
If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
#45. To: hondo68, CZ82 (#41)
President Adams famously said "Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
Marshall lived another nine years, during which time he won over Jefferson's political successor, the states' rights partisan Andrew Jackson. Marshall had initially opposed Jackson's election to the presidency, and in the Cherokee Indians case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision.
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
apocryphal
#47. To: A K A Stone (#44)
If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
The constitution and a dictionary.
I know it would require honest people. So all liberals would be disqualified.
Is that what you are saying?
I hope not, because we know who will always win that argument.
#48. To: GrandIsland (#43)
All a president needs is a pen and an Obama phone, eh?
The People of Athens Tennessee clean up their corrupt police department and government The "McMinn County War"
Many of the protesters broke in to the National Guard Armory and obtained arms. A gun battle lasting several hours ensued and finally the door to the jail was dynamited and breached. The deputies surrendered themselves and the ballot boxes.
#49. To: hondo68 (#42)
#50. To: hondo68 (#41)
he supremes gave themselves the power to determine constitutionality of legislation in Marbury v Madison.
#51. To: nolu chan (#45)
The correct president was Andrew Jackson
#52. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#42)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
#53. To: hondo68 (#51)
SCOTUS rulings are not necessarily "the law".
#54. To: hondo68 (#48)
Many of the protesters broke in to the National Guard Armory and obtained arms. A gun battle lasting several hours ensued and finally the door to the jail was dynamited and breached. The deputies surrendered themselves and the ballot boxes.
The new government encountered challenges including at least eleven resignations of county administrators. On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making." The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#46)
apocryphal
I had to look in the dictionary for that one.
#56. To: hondo68 (#48)
(Edited)
#57. To: hondo68 (#42)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
#58. To: Gatlin, needs Acorn update memo (#57)
And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken.
#59. To: hondo68 (#58)
(Edited)
#60. To: Gatlin (#59)
Do you know of another way?
#61. To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#57)
Their decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.
#62. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#58)
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
I disagree.
U.S. Supreme Court
#65. To: hondo68 (#60)
(Edited)
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
#66. To: nolu chan, hondo68 (#62)
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
#67. To: hondo68 (#60)
(Edited)
Direct Action (Cliven Bundy).
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose states-rights battle with the government to graze his cattle on public lands thrust him into the national spotlight, will be held accountable for the armed standoff his fight triggered with federal officials, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell says.
#68. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#63)
(Edited)
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=40617&Disp=2#C2
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#69. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#68)
Stone correctly disagrees. -
#70. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#69)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
In nolu chans defense. I believe him to be stating the way it is actually working right now. Not what we wish or the way we think it should be. --- A K A Stone
#71. To: tpaine (#68)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#72. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#71)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress."
Fro the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
The Judicial Branch is not some superfluous body which issues irrelevant opinions for all to ignore
#73. To: tpaine (#72)
Fro[m] the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
It's absurd to you, granted. But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause.
The clause of Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution which declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the "supreme law of the land" and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provision of a State constitution or law.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE popular title for Article VI, Section [2] of the United States Constitution, which is the main foundation of the federal government's power over the states, providing in effect that the "acts of the Federal Government are operative as supreme law throughout the Union. They are self-executing, since they prescribe rules enforceable in all courts of the land. The states have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of the laws enacted by the Government of the nation. . . . [T]he full import of the Supremacy Clause was made clear after John Marshall became Chief Justice. In the Marshall interpretation, the clause meant essentially two things: (1) the states may not interfere in any manner with the functioning of the Federal Government; and (2) federal action (whether in the form of a statute, a treaty, a court decision, or an administrative act), if itself constitutional, must prevail over state action inconsistent therewith." Schwarz, Constitutional Law 48 (2d ed. 1979).
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
#74. To: nolu chan, y'all (#73)
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
#75. To: nolu chan (#73)
#76. To: tpaine (#74)
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself.
#77. To: tpaine (#74)
ot true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#76)
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point.
#79. To: A K A Stone (#76)
I'm sure Tpaine also thinks that there should be some check.
#80. To: nolu chan (#77)
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
You can not and never have cited any legal authority that the judiciary can strike down a constitutional amendment or any other part of the Constitution.
Your position continues to be absurd.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]