[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed Source: LF URL Source: [None] Published: Jul 9, 2015 Author: tpaine Post Date: 2015-07-09 10:39:45 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 70847 Comments: 255 The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 236. #9. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Yes, I have a comment (or two.) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. "Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS. We now have a "living breathing" Constitution. Just five tyrants of SCOTUS have already interpreted the Founders intent any way they want (emotionally), and changed federal law (without Congressional or State consent.) What exactly would stop SCOTUS from repealing the 2A? Congress?? "Public outrage? HA! Precedence has been set. Paine, I admire your commitment to the Fairy Tale that is the "US Constitution," but recent Presidents have ignored it; Congress has ignored it; And SCOTUS ignores it....In other words: "It's dead, Jim." that SCOTUS Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   12:57:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Liberator, tpaine (#9) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:03:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: nolu chan (#87) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   22:19:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: tpaine (#94) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:53:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: nolu chan (#98) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. Sigh, another silly, uncalled for pejorative flame.. -- Very unprofessional for a guy trying to pass himself off as one.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   23:01:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: tpaine (#101) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   2:16:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. You affirmed such a power, and provided an example of how such an amendment could be worded. You did not indicate that you would not advocate the power to so amend. It's unfortunate you didn't post that revision. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. --- "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502>> Well, we're not in court, but I do have a pure heart. As for empty heads, I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   11:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #141. To: tpaine (#117) Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? Of course, you must run and hide from my questions as your dingbat legal theory emanating from the tpaine court of the imagination ineluctably deems that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. I answered your question. Why must you hide from mine? Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   19:50:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #146. To: nolu chan (#141) I answered your question. Yep, you answered the question that lead to this thread. Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. - - Fine.. Here's another: --- Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. (In a Constitutional sense) Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. I do not ineluctably deem that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. Your turn, -- answer mine. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   21:37:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #147. To: tpaine (#146) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 #25. To: misterwhite (#24) Seems pretty clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed the second amendment only protects militia-type arms in relation to a militia, doesn't it? It seems clear that the Supremes indicated that in 1939. More recently, they indicated "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) Note however, this quote from the article. After Heller, there is not much left of Miller. FWIW, my personal opinion is that Scalia's Opinion in Heller is correct. Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it was decided. All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess. Miller has been sharply narrowed by Heller. Miller does very little. Heller at 625. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Heller at 592 c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....” Heller at 579-581 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-04   18:22:48 ET nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   22:29:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #148. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#147) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-07-10   22:33:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #153. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#148) I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. AKA Stone --- nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution. Here's what Chan posted about that subject: -- He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. Now I have no idea WHY my remark above raised such a hissy fit, -- but obviously, that is what Chan posted. As I said before, this discussion is getting bizarro. Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue? tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   11:29:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #179. To: tpaine (#153) [tpaine #153] I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. I have not revised my answer. You asked if the 2nd Amendment could be repealed. My answer has consistently been that it could be repealed by another amendment, in the same manner that the 18th was repealed by the 21st. You did not here ask if I favored or opposed such repeal. I have not changed my mind on that either. I just not comport with the fantasy argument you have been cut and pasting for a decade. The RKBA is protected by the 2nd Amendment and the right is an individual right. The 2nd Amendment did not grant a right to anyone, but recognized a pre-existing right, inhering to the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights Amendment II Right to keep and bear arms This right has been fully incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts,See McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as a "central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra. As the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against the states, it applies equally to the states due to the 14th Amendment. If it were not (or before it was) incorporated, that would not confer a delegation of sovereign power to state to mess with the RKBA. The right was individual and I do not see when the people have ever chosen to delegate away their RBKA power in any state. It is not delegated away by silence in the organic law. As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction. To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-11   22:43:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #180. To: nolu chan (#179) Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned. You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. -- It's usually the other way around. --- As you well know. As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction. Whatever. -- You're repeating yourself again. --- Get some new lines... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   22:58:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #183. To: tpaine (#180) You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-11   23:22:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #185. To: nolu chan (#183) Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR? Feel free, but dream on if you really imagine it proves anything... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   23:42:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #186. To: tpaine (#185) Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR? Feel free, but dream on if you really imagine it proves anything... I guess you should keep reading it until it becomes clearer. [tpaine] You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. Perhaps if I emphasize the obvious a bit more. To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-12   2:17:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #188. To: nolu chan, poor thing, uses JR for support. (#186) You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously. You poor thing, trying to imply that filing 'abuse reports' at that time on FR meant attempting to get someone banned. --- Hell, for a while there, it was the sites sport, as everyone competed to see who could get the mods to 'delete' your opponents personally offensive remarks. To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-12   11:29:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #189. To: tpaine (#188) To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29 To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-13   14:03:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #190. To: nolu chan, trying to prove his point by citing JR at FR (#189) To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. And for proof, read the thread below, cited by Chan. www.freerepublic.com/focu...t/650379/posts?page=29#29 To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? If you really read the thread you would know, --- not many.. ---- At this point in my FR 'career', JR was really on my case, and working himself up to permanently banning a number of us 'disruptors'. Which he eventually did... I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-13   17:09:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #191. To: tpaine (#190) I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts tpaine vanity whine 'Flame war' or Constitutional debate? vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine Posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine On the afternnoon of 3/18 Texaggie79 and I got into a type of discussion that is becoming all too common at FR. In an effort to defend his position as a drug warrior, tex decided to attack the motives of his percieved enemies, 'the libertarians'. --- Here is that thread: Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law Changes Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648477/posts?q=1&&page=201 Posts #205/206 are one of our more typical exchanges. -- Shortly after our disagreement ended, -- on that thread. Later that same evening, I had just responded to a concealed carry question at #15, - on this thread: Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648911/posts ---- When my correspondent asked if I was still 'harrassing' texaggie. --- I denied any such intent, -- and Tex immediately posted the URL of the cannibus tread as his 'proof' of being harrassed. Thus, Tex set off another 'flame war' between us on the same subject as the previous post. Eventually, others on the thread protested his hijack of the thread. -- In response, I tried to show that texaggies constitutional position was not only against drugs, but could also be applied against guns. -- Just as this point was about to be established, -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' . 'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid-discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control. No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation. I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange. And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods. I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer. -- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions.. TOPICS: Cheese, Moose, Sister; Free Republic Policy/Q&A; Humor KEYWORDS: Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-50, 51-100, 101-125 next last 1 posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=17#17 To: tpaine You should be flamed just for starting a whole bleeping thread for your edification. What was wrong with leaving your WOD battle where it was? Gotta have a thread with your name on the top or something? I don't care that you posted this turkey in cheese-ville. 17 posted on 3/20/2002, 5:55:00 PM by Cyber Liberty http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=24#24 To: tpaine And you with there wondering why "discussions" with you always turn to flame-fests. You are either stupid or just self-absorbed to the point that you have no idea how ridiculous you look. Buh bye. I have some hot dogs to go steam. 24 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:08:38 PM by Cyber Liberty http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29' To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? = = = = = = = = = = A tpaine victory http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=36#36 To: tpaine You and Tex completely ruined that thread. You dragged in an unrelated ongoing argument and ended up taking the thread completely off topic. What was particularly galling was that you continued your flame war even after Mr. March, the subject of the article, made an appearance on the thread and even went as far as asking you to stop. You pissed him off so bad that now he is banned for using vulgar language. 36 posted on 3/20/2002, 7:35:31 PM by Sandy http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=37#37 To: Sandy I was about to respond [belatedly, I admit] to him, and offer encouragement, etc, when he blew up. I am sorry that you think, -- that I was at fault beyond that. -- I don't see it that way at all. I'm responsible for what I actually do or say. - Not for anyones perceived opinions about my actions. 37 posted on 3/20/2002, 8:03:49 PM by tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40 To: tpaine I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim 40 posted on 3/20/2002, 9:33:42 PM by Jim Robinson And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? And you were obviously referring to your antics on yet some previous thread. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-13   20:19:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #192. To: nolu chan (#191) 13/14 years ago, I posted: --- -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' . 'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid- discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control. No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation. I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange. And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods. I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer. -- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions. 1 posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine Shortly after, I received this post from JR.. To: tpaine --- I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim ----- 40 posted on 3/20/2002, 9:33:42 PM by Jim Robinson And, if memory serves, JR suspended me for another short period, right after that.. And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? I answered, just above, that I have no idea 'how many times'. -- Look it up if it's important to you. -- That seems to be your major obsession the last few days, trying to convict be of some 'crime' over at FR, 13 years ago. Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-13   20:52:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #193. To: tpaine (#192) Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=10#C10 #10. To: sysadmin, gatlin, Y'ALL (#5) I also thank TC for his contributions to help improve LP. I noticed he tried to talk some common sense to a couple of stalkers and agitators to have them see the error in their ways. I doubt it worked and I will not know since I have them on bozo. Gatlin There was an article TPR recently posted purely to instigate a flame war. I pinged you with a request to move it to the Biker Bar. --- Gatlin I saw that and fixed the title accordingly. TPR has been warned that one more incident and he's busted down to a lower posting level. --- sysadmin Gatlin keeps posting barely disguised remarks referring to me as a "stalker" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. tpaine posted on 2015-01-06 18:47:32 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=16#C16 #16. To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Y'ALL (#14) Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. Pthe tpoor ptattle ptale... ---- Palmdale tpaine posted on 2015-01-06 19:09:14 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=17#C17 #17. To: tpaine, Palmdale, All (#16) Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. If I were to start issuing formal warnings to every person here who uses "silly words" in their comments I'd have time for nothing else. People make fun of each other and call each other names here at least a dozen times before breakfast and it continues throughout the day. It is part and parcel of political debate even face-to-face in many instances, and it is very easy to fall into that habit when dealing with anonymous, faceless opponents online. (Frankly I believe in most cases the people doing the name calling are saying more about themselves than the persons being targeted.) However, I will keep an eye out for reports of anything that rises to the level of being truly objectionable. As always, if you guys (or anyone else) really want to get into it with each other that's no skin off my nose but please take it to the Biker Bar where it belongs. sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:39:31 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=18#C18 #18. To: sysadmin (#17) Sorry about the silly words. I'll try to be less of a tpettifogger starting at some unspecified date in the near future. Palmdale posted on 2015-01-06 20:48:34 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=19#C19 #19. To: Palmdale (#18) Sorry about the silly words. I'll try to be less of a tpettifogger starting at some unspecified date in the near future. OK, thanks -- just don't graduate to silly walks or we'll be in real trouble! sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:57:28 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=20#C20 #20. To: tpaine (#16) To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Y'ALL Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. Pthe tpoor ptattle ptale... ---- Palmdale You are just insufferable. Stop whining. SOD posted on 2015-01-06 21:21:18 ET Everybody else tries to instigate flame wars with you, but you remain resolute in keeping the peace. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-13   21:07:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #194. To: nolu chan (#193) (Edited) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-13   21:24:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #195. To: tpaine (#194) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud. Yes, everybody else is unstable. You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative. You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan. I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=39#C39 #39. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL (#8) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional, and that officials of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our various levels of gov'ts could give their opinions to that effect, and refuse to implement such and act, as per their oaths of office Do you contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? Nolu is correct. Every portion of the Constitution can be amended. Or it could be abolished entirely. What a silly clickbait vanity thread. What a silly, click-baiting reply. -- Take your attempts to start a flame war elsewhere. tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 15:33:25 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=79#C79 #79. To: nolu chan (#73) Nolu Chan -- The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. --- I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation. We agree... A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case. Your posting your wingnut nonsense certainly does not prove your point. Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks... tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 21:45:58 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=82#C82 #82. To: tpaine (#79) Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks... A flame war does not consist of mildly perjorative comments. I am expressing my disdain for your blather. nolu chan posted on 2015-07-09 21:55:09 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=89#C89 #89. To: nolu chan (#75) [...] As I've noted before, you seem to want to end this discussion (because you realise you can't what - 'win'?) with a flame war. --- No sale.. tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 22:05:19 ET This is the #75 that you respond to by saying I want to end this discussion with a flame war. What you characterize as an entry in a flame war bears repeating to show your desperation. #75. To: tpaine, tomder55 (#53) The constitutionality of the 18th was challenged in 1920. The SCOTUS declined to issue an opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed. This claim is false, as previously explained thoroughly on the other thread. The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Counsel did not argue the the amendment was unconstitutional, he argued that, due to its content, it was ordinary legislation and not an amendment at all. And, as ordinary legislation, the court had the authority to strike it down, according to this creative argument. Trust tpaine to bloviate endlessly about crap he has not seen or read. On brief: In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution. The briefs were ridiculed in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. This is the Yale Law Journal, not tpaine's court of the imagination. The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes. The argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. [...] Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.” The 18th Amendment was an amendment, not common legislation. In 264 Federal Reporter 186, on the Feigenspan case, the headnotes read, 1. Eighteenth Amendment, with respect to its subject-matter, held within the power to amend given by article 5, and valid. 2. Every grant of power to the federal government, whether by the Constitution as orlglnally framed or by subsequent amendment, necessariy diminished powers of the several st.ates, and that an amendment takes away a pollce power previously In the state dpes not render It invalid. 3. That a constitutional amendment is in effect legislation controlling the conduct of private individuals, in that it ordains a final permanent law prohibiting certain acts, not alterable at the will of a majority, does not render it invalid. 4. The provision of Const. art. 5, authorizing Congress to propose amendments "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary," does not require that a joint resolution proposing an amendment shall expressly declare that it is deemed necessary. 5. Congress alone, of all departments of the federal government, is intrusted with the power of proposing amendments to the Constitution, and the form of resolutions by which it proposes an amendment is not subject to judicial investigation. 6. In Const. art. 5, providing that a proposed amendment shall be valid "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states," when that mode shall be proposed by Congress, the word "Legislature" means the then recognized representative law-making bodies of the states, and the validity of an amendment ratified by the requisite number of such Legislatures cannot be affected by state laws providing for, or permitting, a referendum vote on legislative acts. 7. Eighteenth Amendment, § 2, providing that "the Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislatlon," must be construed, in harmony with its purpose, to expressly authorize effective legislation for enforcement of section 1, which excludes a construction making concurrence of the states necessary to tbe effectiveness of congressional legislation, and such legislation, if enacted, is parramount, and, while it may be supplemented by state legislation, it cannot be defeated by any action or nonaction of the states. In the absence of action by Congress, any state may enact enforcement legislation effective within its borders. 8. National Prohibition Act Oct. 28, 1919, § 1, in providing that "intoxicating liquor" as used in the act, shall be construed to include all liquors, liquids, or compounds containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume, does not make a definition which may be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional by the courts, but one which it was within the reasonable discretion of Congress to make for the purposes of the act. 9. National Prohibition Act Oct 28, 1919, held not invalid, as taking private property for public use without just compensution, in violation of Fifth Amendment, because, as incidental to the exercise of a lawful power, loss may result to certain species of property. 10. "Amendment" includes additions to, as well as corrections of, matters already treated, and there is nothing in the context of Const. art. 5, providing that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments, which suggests that it was used in a restricted sense. The Decree in Feigenspan was affirmed by SCOTUS. 253 US 350, 40 Sup Ct 486. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   21:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   1:10:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #196. To: nolu chan (#195) (Edited) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud. Yes, everybody else is unstable. What can I say? -- You're certainly overwrought, as evidenced by your last reply.. You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative.--- You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan. Who's acting like a poor baby? You are kiddo. I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines. Whatever.... But do tell us more about your robotic fantasies.... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   1:33:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #197. To: tpaine (#196) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. But do tell us more about your robotic fantasies.... If you insist on more stories about your legal acumen and the pride you take in your posting history, I am compelled to comply. When Legal Giants Collide http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=133#133 To: bvw Homosexual sodomy is a criminal act This is absolute lunacy. In order for there to be a crime, someone must be injured by either force or fraud. Period. Otherwise no crime has been committed. 133 posted on 12/6/2002, 10:25:27 PM by Jonathon Spectre http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=211#211 To: Illbay Jonathon Spectre said: "In order for there to be a crime, someone must be injured by either force or fraud. Period." False. Period. 193 - roscoe Give JS & I an example of a 'criminal' act we could commit upon *you*, roscoe, -- that would injure you without using force or fraud. - Can you? 196 posted on 12/07/2002 1:05 PM PST by tpaine Sure. You could open a crack house in my neighborhood. How am I defrauded? How am I forced? 209 - illb Hmmm, - I open a 'bootleg' party house in your neighborhood. Unless I'm really stupid, and let my customers disturb the peace, you wouldn't even know we were there, correct? Unless we create a disturbance/cause harm, there is no criminal action committed to affect *you*, billy. -- But if the peace of the neighborhood is being disturbed, you are being *forced* to contend with an undesireable situation, and if it continued your property could also lose value, -a type of *fraud*. - You would have lawful recourse for your injuries. 211 posted on Saturday, December 07, 2002 17:33:37 by tpaine Let's see, disturbing the peace is a form of fraud. Only in tpaineworld. Give JS & I an example of a 'criminal' act we could commit upon *you*, roscoe, -- that would injure you without using force or fraud. I prefer to give examples of what could be done to yukon tpaine without using force or fraud. You could have your pocket picked. You could be plagiarized, but can think of no reason why anyone would. Your second greatest admirer kills you in your sleep to stop the incessant whine (he later gets off on jury nullification). Unaware that you are dead, your greatest admirer comes along and shoots you sixteen times, remarkably with 16 hits that would have been fatal if you had not already been dead. One cannot really injure a dead person, but your greatest admirer has committed a crime. In tpaineworld, how does one commit a crime against another person, with or without violence? You could always violate the laws of nature. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   12:40:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #198. To: nolu chan (#197) --- I am compelled to comply. You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any. Please, get help. I'm sorry that you feel I've driven you to this compulsion... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   14:21:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #199. To: tpaine (#198) You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any. That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   14:38:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #200. To: nolu chan (#199) That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health.. I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. But in any case, it is not the end of the world when someone disputes what you INSIST are the way things MUST be. And believe me, I really am concerned about your compulsive and repetitive posts. Please, get help... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   15:24:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #201. To: tpaine (#200) Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health.. That's one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=224#224 To: Roscoe; Illbay; bvw bvw: Other than you and young Sprout's own imaginations and wanna-be-ism can you give any historical support for your novel definition of crime? No, he can't. 218 - roscoe lies - My comments at #211 stand unrefuted by you three clowns, -- and now, to divert attention away from that fact, you claim that victimless 'crime' law is historically justified. -- This nations constitution was written in an attempt to correct such historical injustice. You boys, and your weird opinions on constitutional law are testimony that much work remains to educate americans on their own liberty. 224 posted on 12/8/2002, 1:59:56 PM by tpaine [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies] Unrefuted, indeed! Observing the Dean of the tpaine School of Law flail about in the dark is more fun than the typical TV sitcom. Nobody could possibly refute your scholarship at criminal law. Americans need to be educated oni the law and you, as leader of the Black Widows, are the one for the job. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   21:32:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #202. To: nolu chan (#201) How weird that you pick 'Roscoe' for your hero. --- But that's fine. --- Just another example of how overwrought and unstable you've become. I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   23:04:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #203. To: tpaine (#202) Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness. You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd. Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907774/posts?page=177#177 To: tpaine; Kevmo Do not take up law as a profession. Your lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law. Before I call this issue dead, I feel I must address this though... You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. If I invite you on my property with the stipulation that you must not be armed and you are indeed armed without my consent, then you have entered my property without my consent (my consent was conditional on you not being armed) and you would be a trespasser. If I make no mention of such a condition you would not be trespassing until I tell you that you cannot be on my land with weapons and you refused to leave. That's the law (which does not contradict the US Constitution) 177 posted on 10/13/2007, 5:07:03 PM by dpa5923 nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   23:16:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #204. To: nolu chan (#203) I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness. Me? Helpless? Dream on boy. You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd. You keep repeating your mistaken opinions and attempt to prove them by digging up old threads from FR. --- Do you really imagine this silly tactic is working? Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. www.freerepublic.com/focu...907774/posts?page=177#177 Thanks again for the link. I urge anyone to read the thread for context. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   23:43:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #205. To: tpaine (#204) [tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law. [tpaine #202] Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. [tpaine #204] Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Asked and answered at my #203, "Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness." Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907774/posts?page=177#177 Thanks again for the link. I urge anyone to read the thread for context. Oh, that's alright, I'll repeat the context. It was that "[y]our lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law." To: tpaine; Kevmo Do not take up law as a profession. Your lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law. Before I call this issue dead, I feel I must address this though... You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. If I invite you on my property with the stipulation that you must not be armed and you are indeed armed without my consent, then you have entered my property without my consent (my consent was conditional on you not being armed) and you would be a trespasser. If I make no mention of such a condition you would not be trespassing until I tell you that you cannot be on my land with weapons and you refused to leave. That's the law (which does not contradict the US Constitution) 177 posted on 10/13/2007, 5:07:03 PM by dpa5923 As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30 #30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28) [...] It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it. It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds] tpaine posted on 2007-10-30 9:08:50 ET In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's inspired wisdom will rub off. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. As per tpaine, "the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away," I suppose the capital crime cited in the Constitution must refer to a crime committed in Washington, D.C. As for the certified insane having a right to keep and bear arms, some people should not be allowed to keep and bear keyboards. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-15   15:01:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #206. To: nolu chan, continues reposting old threads, in an obsessive effort to 'win' something? (#205) tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. »I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. --- While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law. Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions. I and many others, both here and on other forums, have rejected some of your opinions, as your links to FR and LP have proved. Thanks again do posting them.. As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example: libertypost.org/cgi- bin/r...ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30 #30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28) [...] It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it. It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds] tpaine posted on 2007-10-30 9:08:50 ET In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's ----- Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at leastcthe last portions of the thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-15   16:07:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #207. To: tpaine (#206) It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence, Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions. Any claim to be a lawyer by an internet handle is meaningless. Citations to and quotes of competent legal authority are not. My quotes and citations outweigh your brain farts, such as your still hilarious about what acts do, or do not, constitute a crime of one person against another person. It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless...." It is correct to state that the DoI, a political statement, refers to inalienable rights, such as the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except for their slaves, and the inalienable right to life. It is correct to state that the DoI has never been adopted as the law of any jurisdiction. The paramount law of the United States explicitly provides for capital punishment. While you maintain that the right to life is an inalienable right that man can not take away, the law of the land provides for executions. The several states and the United States have executed man and woman, using such methods as firing squad, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. The objects of the exercise found their supposed inalienable right was quite alienable. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Of course, the person ineligible to possess a weapon, or if the weapon was unlawful to possess, would be guilty of illegal possession of a weapon. The right to self-defense does not authorize unlawful possession of a weapon. In the Bernhard Goetz case, he was found not guilty of four counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault in the first degree, but was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y.P.L. 265.02). Goetz served time as a result of the criminal conviction. People v Pons, Ct App NY, 68 NY2d 264, 266 (1986) In People v Almodovar (62 N.Y.2d 126, supra), where defendant was charged with counts of murder, assault and criminal possession of a weapon, we held that the court correctly refused to charge justification as a defense to criminal possession of a weapon, second degree. There, defendant claimed that he came into possession of the weapon by wresting control of it from the victim who had attacked him with a gun and a screwdriver. We concluded that "the only charge defendant was entitled to on the [possession] count of the indictment was temporary innocent possession" (id., at p 130) and that any benefit "he was entitled to because of the claim of self-defense pertained to the use of a weapon and he received that when the court charged justification in connection with the counts of attempted murder and assault" (id., at pp 130-131). Emphasizing that crimes involving possession of a weapon are distinct from those involving its use, we observed that once "the unlawful possession of the weapon is established, the possessory crime is complete and any unlawful use of the weapon is punishable as a separate crime" (id., at p 130). Juries have consistently found the guilty party to be guilty, contrary to your baseless claim to the contrary. The right to self-defense does not infer a right to unlawful possession of a weapon. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-16   16:26:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #208. To: nolu chan, continuing on with his strange obsession.. (#207) In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's ----- Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the last thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence, You imagine you're 'hitting' me? How idiotic, -- all you're doing is displaying your obsessive weirdness, by posting old threads on which you and I disagreed, most of which you left, unable to prove your points. You're acting like a real crazy guy on FR, 'Roscoe'.. Keep up the good work. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-16   16:52:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #210. To: tpaine (#208) Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. tpaine only wishes I would slink away. I have left him hit from argument like a trapped rat. Whenever tpaine presents his clueless interpretations of the Constitution to an attorney, he is told that he is a fool. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1149329/posts?page=45#45 To: Congressman Billybob It is crystal clear that the Bill of Rights was written to restrain the power and reach of the federal government only. -Billybob- Your own words above confirm that you support the State of California's 'power' to prohibit assault weapons. Congressman Billybob wrote: I haven't said a word about California gun laws. I HAVE said that you are a fool for not understanding that the Constitution means what it says. The supremacy clause of Art VI says that the States are bound to honor our Constitution/BOR's. You are wrong in saying that States are not "restrained" by our BOR's; -- namely, the 2nd Amendment. Case closed. 45 posted on 6/8/2004, 12:24:43 AM by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human be" -- Solzhenitsyn) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1149329/posts?page=46#46 To: tpaine The only "case closed" is your inability to read and understand plain English used in the Constitution. You remain a fool. 46 posted on 6/8/2004, 12:31:09 AM by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies] Congressman Billybob, the late John Armor, was an attorney. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-17   15:09:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #211. To: nolu chan (#210) In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's ---- Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the thread nolu posted, where both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. tpaine only wishes I would slink away. I have left him hit from argument like a trapped rat. Anyone can read the thread in question, wherein both you and Paulsen quit posting. Whenever tpaine presents his clueless interpretations of the Constitution to an attorney, he is told that he is a fool. Congressman Billybob, the late John Armor, was an attorney. Big deal. Most anyone on FR at that time could also testify that he was a big bag of wind.. --- Just as you experienced yourself.. Please continue your hissy fit display though.. It's really getting amusing.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-17   17:00:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #212. To: tpaine (#211) Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the thread nolu posted, where both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. One will have to gain entry to tpaine's mind to find a place where anyone has ever slinked away from tpaine in defeat. Here on the tpaine vanity thread, he has been reduced to responding with "yada, yada, yada," because he is unable to debate the merits of his inane legal arguments, or the lack of such merts. So far, tpain has opined that the courts are wrong, the lawyers are wrong, anyone who disagrees with his nonsense is insane, and has cited imaginary comments. As he has been reduced to unintelligible spluttering, it is time for basic history lessons. Today's lesson is Judicial Review, as explained in the constitutional debates prior to ratification. Reality is readily found, tpaine's bloviations are unsupported. JUDICIAL REVIEW: Farrand and Elliot, Constitutional Debates Farrand's Records is a record of the Federal Constitutional Convention, in three volumes. Elliott's Debates is a record of the State Conventions on the Constitution in five volumes. 1 Farrand 21-22: [James Madison] 8. Resd. that the Executive and a convenient number of the National Judiciary, ought to compose a council of revision with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature before it shall operate, & every act of a particular Legislature before a Negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said Council shall amount to a rejection, unless the Act of the National Legislature be again passed, or that of a particular Legislature be again negatived by of the members of each branch. 9. Resd. that a National Judiciary be established to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature, to hold their offices during good behaviour; and to receive punctually at stated [22] times fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be to hear & determine in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine in the dernier resort, all piracies & felonies on the high seas, captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizens of other States applying to such jurisdictions may be interested, or which respect the collection of the National revenue; impeachments of any National officers, and questions which may involve the national peace and harmony. Note: dernier resort means last resort. - - - - - 1 Farrand 97: [Elbridge Gerry] (First) Clause (of Proposition 8th) relating to a Council of Revision taken into consideration. Mr. Gerry doubts whether the Judiciary ought to form a part of it [nc - a Council of Revision], as they will have a sufficient check agst. encroachments on their own department by their exposition of the laws, which involved a power of deciding on their Constitutionality. - - - - - 2 Farrand 27: [Governeur Morris and Roger Sherman] (The next. —) "To negative all laws passed by the several States (contravening in the opinion of the Nat: Legislature the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of ye Union") Mr. Govr. Morris opposed this power as likely to be terrible to the States, and not necessary, if sufficient Legislative authority should be given to the Genl. Government. Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, as the Courts of the States would not consider as valid any law contravening the Authority of the Union, and which the legislature would wish to be negatived. - - - - - 2 Farrand 28: [James Madison] In R. Island the Judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law were displaced, and others substituted, by the Legislature who would be willing instruments of the wicked & arbitrary plans of their masters. A power of negativing the improper laws of the States is at once the most mild & certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. - - - - - 2 Farrand 93: [James Madison] He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. A law violating a treaty ratified by a preexisting law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 131: [Samuel Adams] Your excellency's first proposition is, "that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated to Congress are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised." This appears, to my mind, to be a summary of a bill of rights, which gentlemen are anxious to obtain. It removes a doubt which many have entertained respecting the matter, and gives assurance that, if any law made by the federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the constitution of this state, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 196: [Oliver Elsworth] If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 443: [George Nicholas] Upon what principle is it contended that the sovereign power resides in the state governments? The honorable gentleman has said truly, that there can be no subordinate sovereignty. Now, if there cannot, my position is, that the sovereignty resides in the people ; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare. This Constitution stands upon this broad principle. - - - - - 2 Elliott 445: [James Wilson] As far as I can understand the idea of magistracy in every government, this seems to be a proper arrangement; the judicial department is considered as a part of the executive authority of government. Now, I have no idea that the authority should be restricted so as not to be able to perform its functions with full effect. I would not have the legislature sit to make laws which cannot be executed. It is not meant here that the laws shall be a dead letter: it is meant that they shall be carefully and duly considered before they are enacted, and that then they shall be honestly and faithfully executed. This observation naturally leads to a more particular consideration of the government before us. In order, sir, to give permanency, stability, and security to any government, I conceive it of essential importance, that its legislature should be restrained; that there should not only be what we call a passive, but an active power over it for, of all kinds of despotism, this is the most dreadful, and the most difficult to be corrected. With how much contempt have we seen the authority of the people treated by the legislature of this state! and how often have we seen it making laws in one session, that have been repealed the next, either on account of the fluctuation of party, or their own impropriety. This could not have been the case in a compound legislature; it is therefore proper to have efficient restraints upon the legislative body. These restraints arise from different sources. I will mention some of them. In this Constitution, they will be produced, in a very considerable degree, by a division of the power in the legislative body itself. Under this system, they may arise likewise from the interference of those officers who will be introduced into the executive and judicial departments. They may spring also from another source — the election by the people; and finally, under this Constitution, they may proceed from the great and last resort — from the people themselves. I say, under this Constitution, the legislature may be restrained, and kept within its prescribed bounds, by the interposition of the judicial department. - - - - - 4 Elliott 553: [John Marshall] These, sir, are the points of federal jurisdiction to which he objects, with a few exceptions. Let us examine each of them with a supposition that the same impartiality will be observed there as in other courts, and then see if any mischief will result from them. With respect to its cognizance in all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, he says that, the laws of the United States being paramount to the laws of the particular states, there is no case but what this will extend to. Has the government of the United States power to make laws on every subject? Does he understand it so? Can they make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims, between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction. They would declare it void. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-20   18:27:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #213. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#212) (Edited) --- nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed --- Nolu wrote this proposed amendment that follows, and claims that it would be constitutional.. The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Since posting this thread, I'm flat amazed at how many self described 'conservatives' agree with Nolu, that a tyranny of a (super?) majority could repeal the 2nd Amendment, in a supposedly constitutional manner. Now, of course, nolu is still posting opinions from courts and 'expert' authorities that agree with his opinions. -- None of which, in my opinion, have proved his point. - -- (Although in his last post, oddly enough, he quotes from opinions that agree with points I have made, previously). -- His other efforts, to smear me, --- only reinforce, in my opinion, nolu' s obsessive and almost fanatical delusion that the majority rules in this Republic. We formed this Republic under the rule of law, Constitutional law, to protect individual rights. -- Passing amendments that repealed individual rights would in effect, nullify our constitutional principles.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-20   20:19:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #216. To: tpaine (#213) As tpaine has been reduced to unintelligible spluttering, it is time to continue the basic history lessons. Today's lesson continues Judicial Power and the Supremacy Clause. William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 1825, Chapter 20, of the Judicial Power, p. 188: CHAPTER XX. Of the Judicial Power. NO form of government is complete unless it be accompanied with a judicial power. To make laws and to execute them are the two great operations of government, but they cannot be fully and correctly executed unless there is somewhere resident a power to expound and apply them. This power is auxiliary to the executive authority, and in some degree partakes of its nature. But it is also required at times to control the executive, and what it decides to be unlawful the executive cannot perform. It may also in some degree be said to participate in the legislative power. Its construction of the acts of the legislature is received as binding and conclusive, although it does not prevent the legislature from repairing its own defects, or clearing up its own ambiguities by subsequent laws, operating on subsequent cases. A high function also appertains to the judiciary in the exclusive right to expound the constitution, and thereby to test the validity of all the acts of the legislature. To the people at large, therefore, this institution is peculiarly valuable and ought to be eminently cherished by them. On its firm and independent structure they repose with safety, while they perceive in it a power which is only set in motion when applied to, but which when thus brought into action, proceeds with competent power when required, to correct the error or subdue the oppression of both or either of the two other branches. - - - - - - - - - - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 1825, Chapter 30, Of checks and controls on other branches of the Government, p. 277: Secondly, as this may not always be a sufficient restraint, the judicial power presents an effectual barrier against its excesses, the observations on which need not be repeated. But, as observed, the judicial power possesses no spontaneous motion—it must be called into action by the application of others—either individuals or constituted authorities, and in the mean time, the obnoxious law may not only take its place in the statute book, but be injuriously acted upon. The third corrective therefore is in the hands of the people, who do not, as disingenuously remarked, make no other use of their power than to give it away. The biennial election of the house of representatives, of which the people can by no artifice be deprived, secures to them the power of removing every member of that house who has shown either an inability to comprehend, or an unwillingness to conform to the transcendent obligations of the constitution, which he has sworn to support. Here, then, we have the protection and safety unknown to those countries where either the legislature elect themselves, or enjoy an hereditary right, or where, although the representative principle may be nominally kept up, its exercise may be suspended or postponed at the pleasure of another part of the government. - - - - - - - - - - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, pages 693-694: § 1830. The next clause is, "This constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. And the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." § 1831. The propriety of this clause would seem to result from the very nature of the constitution. If it was to establish a national government, that government ought, to the extent of its powers and rights, to be supreme. It would be a perfect solecism to affirm, that a national government should exist with certain powers; and yet, that in the exercise of those powers it should not be supreme. What other inference could have been drawn, than of their supremacy, if the constitution had been totally silent? And surely a positive affirmance of that, which is necessarily implied, cannot in a case of such vital importance be deemed unimportant. The very circumstance, that a question might be made, would irresistibly lead to the conclusion, that it ought not to be left to inference. A law, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule, which those, to whom it is prescribed, are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws, which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers entrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those [694] societies, and the individuals, of whom they are composed, It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent upon the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another name for political power and supremacy. But it will not follow, that acts of the larger society, which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. They will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive, that the above clause only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a national government.1 It will be observed, that the supremacy of the laws is attached to those only, which are made in pursuance of the constitution; a caution very proper in itself but in fact the limitation would have arisen by irresistible implication, if it had not been expressed.2 1 The Federalist, No. 33. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat R. 210, 211; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat R. 405, 406. — This passage from the Federalist (No. 33) has been, for another purpose, already cited in Vol. I. § 340; but it is necessary to be here repeated to give due effect to the subsequent passages. 2 Ibid. See also 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 369, 370. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703: § 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void. So, in like manner, the same duty arises, whenever any other department of the national or state governments exceeds its constitutional functions. But the judiciary of the United States has no general jurisdiction to declare acts of the several states void, unless they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, notwithstanding they are repugnant to the state constitution. Such a power belongs to it only, when it sits to administer the local law of a state, and acts exactly, as a state tribunal is bound to act. But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-22   18:34:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #218. To: nolu chan (#216) Please continue your hissy fit display though.. It's really getting amusing.. --- Particularly amusing is your last quote, which makes my point: --- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703: ---- § 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void. So, in like manner, the same duty arises, whenever any other department of the national or state governments exceeds its constitutional functions. But the judiciary of the United States has no general jurisdiction to declare acts of the several states void, unless they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, notwithstanding they are repugnant to the state constitution. Such a power belongs to it only, when it sits to administer the local law of a state, and acts exactly, as a state tribunal is bound to act. But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy. Thank you, again... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-26   7:46:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #220. To: tpaine (#218) Please continue .... http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/419/case.html Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dal. 419 (1793) Justice Iredell at 2 Dal. 447 The word “corporations,” in its largest sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate), whether its power be restricted or transcendant, is in this sense "a corporation." Justice Iredell at 2 Dal. 448 A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: the voluntary and deliberate choice of the people. Justice Wilson at 2 Dal. 455 Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect Creator. A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man, and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. When I speak of a state as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance inferior only to that which is divine. Of all human contrivances, it is certainly most transcendantly excellent. It is concerning this contrivance that Cicero says so sublimely, “Nothing, which is exhibited upon our globe is more acceptable to that divinity which governs the whole universe than those communities and assemblages of men which, lawfully associated, are denominated states.” Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people. But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics, there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the state has claimed precedence of the people, so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the state, and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the sovereigns of the state. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there; but the first degree is still too prevalent, even in the several States of which our union is composed. By a "state," I mean a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit to enjoy peaceably what is their own and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests; it has its rules; it has its rights; and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts, and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act are men. Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be questioned but it is. Justice Wilson at 2 Dal. 457 As a citizen, I know the government of that state to be republican; and my short definition of such a government is one constructed on this principle — that the supreme power resides in the body of the people. As a judge of this court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as a part of the "People of the United states," did not surrender the supreme or sovereign power to that state, but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. Justice Wilson at 2 Dal. 462-63 In the United states, and in the several states, which compose the Union, we go not so far, but still we go one step farther than we ought to go in this unnatural and inverted order of things. The states, rather than the people, for whose sakes the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention. This, I believe, has produced much of the confusion and perplexity which have appeared in several proceedings and several publications on state politics, and on the politics, too, of the United states. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? “The United states,” instead of the “People of the United states,” is the toast given. This is not politically correct. The toast is meant to present to view the first great object in the Union: it presents only the second. It presents only the artificial person, instead of the natural persons who spoke it into existence. A state I cheerfully fully work of God. Concerning the prerogative of Kings, and concerning the sovereignty of states, much has been said and written; but little has been said and written concerning a subject much more dignified and important, the majesty of the people. The mode of expression, which I would substitute in the place of that generally used, is not only politically, but also (for between true liberty and true taste there is a close alliance) classically more correct. On the mention of Athens, a thousand refined and endearing associations rush at once into the memory of the scholar, the philosopher, and the patriot. When Homer, one of the most correct, as well as the oldest of human authorities, enumerates the other nations of Greece whose forces acted at the siege of Troy, he arranges them under the names of their different Kings or Princes. But when he comes to the Athenians, he distinguishes them by the peculiar appellation of the PEOPLE of Athens. The well known address used by Demosthenes, when he harrangued and animated his assembled countrymen, was “O Men of Athens.” With the strictest propriety, therefore, classical and political, our national scene opens with the most magnificent object which the nation could present. “The PEOPLE of the United states” are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation. Justice Cushing at 2 Dal. 468 But still it may be insisted that this will reduce States to mere corporations, and take away all sovereignty. As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies politic. Chief Justice Jay at 2 Dal. 470 The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it, and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that Crown, passed not to the people of the Colony or States within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations; the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Chief Justice Jay at 2 Dal. 473 There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this — any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-29   0:57:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #221. To: nolu chan (#220) 218. To: nolu chan (#216) Please continue your hissy fit display though.. It's really getting amusing.. --- Particularly amusing is your this quote, which makes my point: --- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703: ---- § 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void. So, in like manner, the same duty arises, whenever any other department of the national or state governments exceeds its constitutional functions. But the judiciary of the United States has no general jurisdiction to declare acts of the several states void, unless they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, notwithstanding they are repugnant to the state constitution. Such a power belongs to it only, when it sits to administer the local law of a state, and acts exactly, as a state tribunal is bound to act. But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy. Thank you, again.. Although you have proven your utter lack of reading comprehension, I will continue, at your request. Sorry but my request is for you to continue making a fool of YOUR self. --- And you're doing just fine.. As you make believe you are unable to fathom the bare fundamentals of judicial review,--- Unlike you, I comprehend the plain words of our Constitution. --- It's wannabe lawyers, and shysters like you who have fouled up the judicial review system. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-29   20:24:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #222. To: tpaine (#221) Please continue your hissy fit display though.. It's really getting amusing.. --- Particularly amusing is your this quote, which makes my point: --- Particulary amusing is your vivid imagination. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703: ---- § 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void. So, in like manner, the same duty arises, whenever any other department of the national or state governments exceeds its constitutional functions. But the judiciary of the United States has no general jurisdiction to declare acts of the several states void, unless they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, notwithstanding they are repugnant to the state constitution. Such a power belongs to it only, when it sits to administer the local law of a state, and acts exactly, as a state tribunal is bound to act. But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy. Your assinine opinion is that SCOTUS lacks the authority to exercise judicial review and declare laws constitutional or strike them down as unconstitutional, and you go further to claim that the Executive and Legislative branches are empowered to ignore SCOTUS decisions by some hitherto unknown magical power bestowed by the Supremacy Clause. Justice Story wrote that "the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy." You vividly imagine that this statement confirming the authority to exercise judicial review somehow supports your brain fart. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=73#C73 tpaine posted on 2015-06-09 10:03:28 ET [nc] Yep, and in tpaineworld, Obama, the rest of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch get to ignore the opinions issued by SCOTUS. Yep, those branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI.... Continuing at your invitation, from SCOTUS predating Marbury. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/409/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 409 (1792) 2 U.S. 409 MOTION FOR MANDAMUS This was a motion for a mandamus to be directed to the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania commanding the said court to proceed in a certain petition of Wm. Hayburn, who had applied to be put on the pension list of the United States as an invalid pensioner. The principal case arose upon the act of Congress passed 23 March, 1792. The Attorney General (Randolph) who made the motion for the mandamus, having premised that it was done ex officio, without an application from any particular person, but with a view to procure the execution of an act of Congress particularly interesting to a meritorious and unfortunate class of citizens, the court declared that it entertained great doubt upon his right, under such circumstances and in a case of this kind, to proceed ex officio, and directed him to state the principles on which he attempted to support the right. The Attorney General accordingly entered into an elaborate description of the powers and duties of his office. But the court being divided in opinion on that question, the motion, made ex officio, was not allowed. The Attorney General then changed the ground of his interposition, declaring it to be at the instance and on behalf of Hayburn, a party interested; and he entered into the merits of the case upon the act of Congress and the refusal of the judges to carry it into effect. The Court observed that it would hold the motion under advisement until the next term, but no decision was ever pronounced, as the legislature, at an intermediate 2 U. S. 410 session, provided in another way for the relief of the pensioners. * 2 U. S. 411 The Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, consisting of Wilson, and Blair, Justices, and Peters, District Judge, made the following representation in a letter jointly addressed to the President of the United States on 18 April, 1792: “To you it officially belongs to ‘take care that the laws’ of the United States ‘to faithfully executed.’ Before you, therefore, we think it our duty to lay the sentiments which, on a late painful occasion, governed us with regard to an act passed by the legislature of the union.” “The people of the United States have vested in Congress all legislative powers ‘granted in the Constitution.’” “They have vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress shall establish ‘the judicial power of the United States.’” “It is worthy of remark that in Congress the whole legislative power of the United States is not vested. An important part of that power was exercised by the people themselves when they ‘ordained and established the Constitution.’” “This Constitution is ‘the Supreme Law of the Land.’ This supreme law ‘all judicial officers of the United States are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support.’” “It is a principle important to freedom that in government, the judicial should be distinct from and independent of the legislative department. To this important principle the people of the United States, in forming their Constitution, have manifested the highest regard.” “They have placed their judicial power not in Congress, but in ‘courts.’ They have ordained that the ‘judges of those courts shall hold their offices during good behavior,’ and that ‘during their continuance in office, their salaries shall not be diminished.’” “Congress has lately passed an act to regulate, among other things, ‘the claims to invalid pensions.’” “Upon due consideration, we have been unanimously of opinion that under this act, the circuit court held for the Pennsylvania District could not proceed” “1st. Because the business directed by this act is not of a judicial nature. It forms no part of the power vested by the Constitution in the courts of the United States; the circuit court must consequently have proceeded without constitutional authority.” “2d. Because if, upon that business, the court had proceeded, its judgments (for its opinions are its judgments) might, under the same act, have been revised and controlled by the legislature, and by an officer in the executive department. Such revision and control we deemed radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts, and consequently with that important principle which is so strictly observed by the Constitution of the United States. “ 2 U. S. 412 “These, Sir, are the reasons of our conduct. Be assured that though it became necessary, it was far from being pleasant. To be obliged to act contrary either to the obvious directions of Congress or to a constitutional principle, in our judgment equally obvious, excited feelings in us which we hope never to experience again.” The Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina (consisting of Iredell Justice, and Sitgreaves, District Judge) made the following representation in a letter jointly addressed to the President of the United States on 8 June, 1792. “We, the judges now attending at the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Carolina, conceive it our duty to lay before you some important observations which have occurred to us in the consideration of an act of Congress lately passed, entitled” “An act to provide for the settlement of the claims of widows and orphans barred by the limitations heretofore established, and to regulate the claims to invalid pensions.” “We beg leave to premise that it is as much our inclination as it is our duty to receive with all possible respect every act of the legislature, and that we never can find ourselves in a more painful situation than to be obliged to object to the execution of any, more especially to the execution of one founded on the purest principles of humanity and justice, which the act in question undoubtedly is. But however, lamentable a difference in opinion really may be, or with whatever difficulty we may have formed an opinion, we are under the indispensable necessity of acting according to the best dictates of our own judgment after duly weighing every consideration that can occur to us, which we have done on the present occasion.” “The extreme importance of the case and our desire of being explicit beyond the danger of being misunderstood, will, we hope, justify us in stating our observations in a systematic manner. We therefore, Sir, submit to you the following:” “1. That the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments are each formed in a separate and independent manner, and that the ultimate basis of each is the Constitution only, within the limits of which each department can alone justify any act of authority.” “2. That the legislature, among other important powers, unquestionably possess that of establishing courts in such a manner as to its wisdom shall appear best, limited by the terms of the Constitution only, and to whatever extent that power may be exercised, or however severe the duty it may think proper to require, the judges, when appointed in virtue of any such establishment, owe implicit and unreserved obedience to it.” “3. That at the same time, such courts cannot be warranted, as we conceive, by virtue of that part of the Constitution delegating Judicial power, for the exercise of which any act of the legislature is provided, in exercising (even under the authority of another act) 2 U. S. 413 any power not in its nature judicial, or, if judicial, not provided for upon the terms the Constitution requires.” “4. That whatever doubt may be suggested, whether the power in question is properly of a judicial nature, yet inasmuch as the decision of the court is not made final, but may be at least suspended in its operation by the Secretary at War, if he shall have cause to suspect imposition or mistake, this subjects the decision of the court to a mode of revision which we consider to be unwarranted by the Constitution, for though Congress may certainly establish, in instances not yet provided for, courts of appellate jurisdiction, yet such courts must consist of judges appointed in the manner the Constitution requires and holding their offices by no other tenure than that of their good behavior, by which tenure the office of Secretary at War is not held. And we beg leave to add with all due deference that no decision of any court of the United States can under any circumstances, in our opinion, agreeable to the Constitution, be liable to a reversion or even suspension by the legislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be vested but the important one relative to impeachments.” “These, sir, are our reasons for being of opinion, as we are at present, that this circuit court cannot be justified in the execution of that part of the act which requires it to examine and report an opinion on the unfortunate cases of officers and soldiers disabled in the service of the United States. The part of the act requiring the court to sit five days for the purpose of receiving applications from such persons we shall deem it our duty to comply with, for whether in our opinion such purpose can or cannot be answered, it is, as we conceive, our indispensable duty to keep open any court of which we have the honor to be judges as long as Congress shall direct.” “The high respect we entertain for the legislature, our feelings as men for persons whose situation requires the earliest as well as the most effectual relief, and our sincere desire to promote, whether officially or otherwise, the just and benevolent views of Congress so conspicuous on the present as well as on many other occasions have induced us to reflect whether we could be justified in acting under this act personally in the character of commissioners during the session of a court, and could we be satisfied that we had authority to do so, we would cheerfully devote such part of our time as might be necessary for the performance of the service. But we confess we have great doubts on this head. The power appears to be given to the court only, and not to the judges of it, and as the Secretary at War has not a discretion in all instances, but only in those where he has cause to suspect imposition or mistake, to withhold a person recommended by the court from being named on the pension list, it would be necessary for us to be well persuaded we possessed such an authority before we exercised a power, which might be a means of drawing money out of the public treasury as effectually as an express appropriation by law. We do not mean, however, to preclude ourselves from a very deliberate consideration whether we can be warranted in executing the purposes of the act in that manner in case an application should be made.” “No application has yet been made to the court or to ourselves individually, and therefore we have had some doubts as to the propriety of giving an opinion in a case which has not yet come regularly and judicially before us. None can be more sensible than we are of the necessity of judges’ being in general extremely cautious in not intimating an opinion in any case extrajudicially, because we well know how liable the best minds are, notwithstanding their utmost care, to a bias which may arise from a preconceived opinion, even unguardedly, much more deliberately, given. But in the present instance, as many unfortunate and meritorious individuals whom Congress have justly thought proper objects of immediate relief may suffer great distress even by a short delay and may be utterly ruined by a long one, we determined at all events to make our sentiments known as early as possible, considering this as a case which must be deemed an exception to the general rule upon every principle of humanity and justice; resolving however, that so far as we are concerned individually, in case an application should be made, we will most attentively hear it, and if we can be convinced this opinion is a wrong one, we shall not hesitate to act accordingly, being as far from the weakness of supposing that there is any reproach in having committed an error, to which the greatest and best men are sometimes liable, as we should be from so low a sense of duty, as to think it would not be the highest and most deserved reproach that could be bestowed on any men (much more on judges) that they were capable from any motive of persevering against conviction in apparently maintaining an opinion which they really thought to be erroneous. “ 2 U. S. 414 RULE. THE Attorney-General having moved for information relative to the system of practice by which the attorneys and counselors of this Court shall regulate themselves and of the place in which rules in causes here depending shall be obtained, THE CHIEF JUSTICE at a subsequent day stated that: The Court considers the practice of the Courts of King’s Bench and Chancery in England as affording outlines for the practice of this Court, and that it will from time to time make such alterations therein as circumstances may render necessary. * See an act passed 28 Feb., 1793. As the reasons assigned by the judges for declining to execute the first act of Congress involve a great constitutional question, it will not be thought improper to subjoin them in illustration of Hayburn’s Case. The Circuit Court for the District of New York (consisting of Jay, Chief Justice, Cushing Justice, and Duane, District Judge) proceeded on 5 April, 1791, to take into consideration the act of Congress entitled “An act to provide for the settlement of the claims of widows, and orphans barred by the limitations heretofore established, and to regulate the claims to invalid pensions,” and was thereupon unanimously of opinion and agreed “That by the Constitution of the United States, the government thereof is divided into three distinct and independent branches, and that it is the duty of each to abstain from and to oppose, encroachments on either.” “That neither the Legislative nor the Executive branches can constitutionally assign to the Judicial any duties but such as are properly judicial and to be performed in a judicial manner.” “That the duties assigned to the circuit courts by this act are not of that description, and that the act itself does not appear to contemplate them as such, inasmuch as it subjects the decisions of these courts, made pursuant to those duties, first to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary at War and then to the revision of the legislature, whereas by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War nor any other Executive officer, nor even the legislature, is authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.” “As, therefore, the business assigned to this Court by the act is not judicial nor directed to be performed judicially, the act can only be considered as appointing commissioners for the purposes mentioned in it by official instead of personal descriptions.” “That the judges of this court regard themselves as being the commissioners designated by the act, and therefore as being at liberty to accept or decline that office.” “That as the objects of this act are exceedingly benevolent, and do real honor to the humanity and justice of Congress, and as the judges desire to manifest, on all proper occasions and in every proper manner their high respect for the national legislature, they will execute this act in the capacity of commissioners.” “That as the legislature has a right to extend the session of this court for any term which it may think proper by law to assign, the term of five days, as directed by this act, ought to be punctually observed.” “That the judges of this court will, as usual, during the session thereof, adjourn the court from day to day or other short periods as circumstances may render proper, and that they will regularly, between the adjournments, proceed as commissioners to execute the business of this act in the same courtroom or chamber.” nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-29   23:27:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #223. To: nolu chan (#222) nc] Yep, and in tpaineworld, Obama, the rest of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch get to ignore the opinions issued by SCOTUS. Yep, those branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI.... Your assinine opinion is that SCOTUS lacks the authority to exercise judicial review and declare laws constitutional or strike them down as unconstitutional, That's YOUR asinine opinion about my opinion, and my opinion is backed up by the supremacy clause. and you go further to claim that the Executive and Legislative branches are empowered to ignore SCOTUS decisions by some hitherto unknown magical power bestowed by the Supremacy Clause. Read the clause. It says that all officials of our republic are duty bound to honor our Constitution as the supreme law. -- Which gives them the power to ignore unconstitutional 'laws'. ( At their own peril, of course) --- This concept is called 'checks and balances', and without it, we would have a tyranny run by smart assed wannabe lawyers, like you. Justice Story wrote that "the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy." --- You vividly imagine that this statement confirming the authority to exercise judicial review somehow supports your brain fart. You imagine that I'm having brain farts, while your own theories about our Constitution are akin to a bag of noxious fumes.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-30   9:51:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #225. To: tpaine (#223) Yep, those branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI.... Only in tpaine's Court of the Imagination. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809) Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. With great attention, and with serious concern, the Court has considered the return made by the Judge for the District of Pennsylvania to the mandamus directing him to execute the sentence pronounced by him in the case of Gideon Olmstead and others v. Rittenhouse’s Executrixes, or to show cause for not so doing. The cause shown is an act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, passed subsequent to the rendition of his sentence. This act authorizes and requires the Governor to demand, for the use of the State of Pennsylvania, the money which had been decreed to Gideon Olmstead and others, and which was in the hands of the executrixes of David Rittenhouse; and, in default of payment, to direct the Attorney General to institute a suit for the recovery thereof. This act further authorizes and requires the Governor to use any further means he 9 U. S. 136 may think necessary for the protection of what it denominates “the just rights of the State,” and also to protect the persons and properties of the said executrixes of David Rittenhouse, deceased, against any process whatever, issued out of any federal Court in consequence of their obedience to the requisition of the said act. If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all, and the people of Pennsylvania, not less than the citizens of every other State, must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of the union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves. The act in question does not, in terms, assert the universal right of the State to interpose in every case whatever, but assigns, as a motive for its interposition in this particular case, that the sentence the execution of which it prohibits was rendered in a cause over which the federal Courts have no jurisdiction. If the ultimate right to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the Union is placed by the Constitution in the several State legislatures, then this act concludes the subject; but if that power necessarily resides in the supreme judicial tribunal of the nation, then the jurisdiction of the District Court of Pennsylvania over the case in which that jurisdiction was exercised ought to be most deliberately examined, and the act of Pennsylvania, with whatever respect it may be considered, cannot be permitted to prejudice the question. [snip] The Federalist No. 81 May 28, 1788 Publius [Alexander Hamilton] [excerpt] But perhaps the force of the objection may be thought to consist in the particular organization of the Supreme Court; in its being composed of a distinct body of magistrates, instead of being one of the branches of the legislature, as in the government of Great Britain and that of the State. To insist upon this point, the authors of the objection must renounce the meaning they have labored to annex to the celebrated maxim, requiring a separation of the departments of power. It shall, nevertheless, be conceded to them, agreeably to the interpretation given to that maxim in the course of these papers, that it is not violated by vesting the ultimate power of judging in a PART of the legislative body. But though this be not an absolute violation of that excellent rule, yet it verges so nearly upon it, as on this account alone to be less eligible than the mode preferred by the convention. From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Nor is this all. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. There is an absurdity in referring the determination of causes, in the first instance, to judges of permanent standing; in the last, to those of a temporary and mutable constitution. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity. These considerations teach us to applaud the wisdom of those States who have committed the judicial power, in the last resort, not to a part of the legislature, but to distinct and independent bodies of men. Contrary to the supposition of those who have represented the plan of the convention, in this respect, as novel and unprecedented, it is but a copy of the constitutions of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; and the preference which has been given to those models is highly to be commended. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-30   23:18:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #226. To: nolu chan (#225) --- you go further to claim that the Executive and Legislative branches are empowered to ignore SCOTUS decisions by some hitherto unknown magical power bestowed by the Supremacy Clause. Read the clause. It says that all officials of our republic are duty bound to honor our Constitution as the supreme law. -- Which gives them the power to ignore unconstitutional 'laws'. ( At their own peril, of course) --- This concept is called 'checks and balances', and without it, we would have a tyranny run by smart assed wannabe lawyers, like you. Justice Story wrote that "the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy." --- You vividly imagine that this statement confirming the authority to exercise judicial review somehow supports your brain fart. You imagine that I'm having brain farts, while your own theories about our Constitution are akin to a bag of noxious fumes.. Continuing your remedial education. All you're continuing is your repetitive postings of facts not in contention, in an unsuccessful, obsessive effort to gloss over the FACT that you do NOT support our Constitution's checks and balances doctrine. Poor you, stuck on stupid repetitions. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-31   8:17:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #228. To: tpaine (#226) Yep, those branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI.... As shown recently in 2012, in Arizona v. United States, the State authorities citing the Screw Off provision of the Supremacy Clause found only in the tpaine Court of the Imagination, are assisted in getting their minds right. Arizona v United States, 567 US 11-182 (2012) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA et al. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012 [excerpts] Syllabus Held: [Slip Op at 2.] 2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation "so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" or where a "federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8. - - - - - Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. [Slip Op at 7-8.] III Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991); U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). From the existence of two sovereigns follows the possibility that laws can be in conflict or at cross-purposes. The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Art. VI, cl. 2. Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law. See Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U. S. 363, 372 (2000) ; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210–211 (1824). There is no doubt that Congress may withdraw specified powers from the States by enacting a statute containing an express preemption provision. See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 4). State law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, the States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115 (1992) . The intent to displace state law altogether can be inferred from a framework of regulation "so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" or where there is a "federal interest . . . so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947) ; see English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 79 (1990) . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law. Crosby, supra, at 372. This includes cases where "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132 –143 (1963), and those instances where the challenged state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines, 312 U. S., at 67; see also Crosby, supra, at 373 ("What is a sufficient obstacle is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects"). In preemption analysis, courts should assume that "the historic police powers of the States" are not superseded "unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Rice, supra, at 230; see Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555, 565 (2009). [Slip Op at 25.] The United States has established that §§3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-31   14:17:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #229. To: nolu chan (#228) -- you go further to claim that the Executive and Legislative branches are empowered to ignore SCOTUS decisions by some hitherto unknown magical power bestowed by the Supremacy Clause. Read the clause. It says that all officials of our republic are duty bound to honor our Constitution as the supreme law. -- Which gives them the power to ignore unconstitutional 'laws'. ( At their own peril, of course) --- This concept is called 'checks and balances', and without it, we would have a tyranny run by smart assed wannabe lawyers, like you. Continuing your remedial education. All you're continuing is your repetitive postings of facts not in contention, in an unsuccessful, obsessive effort to gloss over the FACT that you do NOT support our Constitution's checks and balances doctrine. Poor you, stuck on stupid repetitions. In tpaine's Court of the Imagination, the Supremacy Clause contains a secret codicil referred to as the Screw Off provision, which provides that when the Executive or Legislature of a State disagrees with a constitutional ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is a secret power to tell the Court to screw off. --- tpaine holds the only known copy of the Supremacy Clause which includes the Screw Off provision, which he allegedly found steganographically encrypted in the dot of one of the semi-colons. The rest of the world only has the standard Supremacy Clause which reads, This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Try as one may, with the standard Supremacy Clause, one may not discover the provision which empowers the Executive and the Legislative branches to tell the Judiciary to screw off. All three branches are empowered to ignore 'laws' that are NOT made "in pursuance thereof"... And you know it... But by all means, pick another lengthy, non-germaine court opinion to quote, as you know damn well no one bothers to read your wind bag efforts anyway.. Get a life, stop trying to prove you're LF's foremost legal beagle. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-31   17:32:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #230. To: tpaine (#229) All three branches are empowered to ignore 'laws' that are NOT made "in pursuance thereof"... And you know it... When SCOTUS has decided a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, the other branches are bound by the ruling, as you, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio know. You're blithering idiocy does not change the historical facts. When Faubus tried your bullshit in practice, he was met with the 82nd Airborne and had a come to Jesus moment. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) United States Supreme Court Cooper v. Aaron, (1958) No. 116 Argued: September 11, 1958 Decided: September 12, 1958 Opinion announced September 29, 1958. [excerpts] 1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court’s considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. P. 4. 2. This Court rejects the contention that it should uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board’s plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify its holding in the Brown case have been further challenged and tested in the courts. P. 4. [...] 8. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” P. 18. [...] Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers’ “anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . .” Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524. - - - - - The Federalist No. 81 May 28, 1788 Publius [Alexander Hamilton] [excerpt] And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity. These considerations teach us to applaud the wisdom of those States who have committed the judicial power, in the last resort, not to a part of the legislature, but to distinct and independent bodies of men. Contrary to the supposition of those who have represented the plan of the convention, in this respect, as novel and unprecedented, it is but a copy of the constitutions of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; and the preference which has been given to those models is highly to be commended. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-31   17:52:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #231. To: nolu chan (#230) ALl three branches are empowered to ignore 'laws' that are NOT made "in pursuance thereof"... And you know it... But by all means, pick another lengthy, non-germaine court opinion to quote, as you know damn well no one bothers to read your wind bag efforts anyway.. Get a life, stop trying to prove you're LF's foremost legal beagle. When SCOTUS has decided a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, the other branches are bound by the ruling, NOT true. -- Tell it to Dred Scott. --- as you, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio know. --- You're blithering idiocy does not change the historical facts. When Faubus tried your bullshit in practice, he was met with the 82nd Airborne --- The SCOTUS was backed up by Eisenhower.. Without Ike, the court would have been powerless to enforce its opinion. Get a grip, you're making fool of yourself. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-31   19:07:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #233. To: tpaine (#231) The SCOTUS was backed up by Eisenhower.. Without Ike, the court would have been powerless to enforce its opinion. State authority challenged a SCOTUS decision as you imagine is within their authority. The Federal government has ample ability to enforce SCOTUS decisions against State authorities. Governor Faubus got his mind right after a visit by the 82nd Airborne. By your assinine logic, legislation would not have force as the Legislative branch does not enforce it, the Executive does. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-31   19:50:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #234. To: nolu chan (#233) Your blithering idiocy does not change the historical facts. Ike decided to enforce the SCOTUS opinion with troops. He was NOT obligated to do so. When Faubus tried your bullshit in practice, he was met with the 82nd Airborne --- The SCOTUS was backed up by Eisenhower.. Without Ike, the court would have been powerless to enforce its opinion. The Federal government has ample ability to enforce SCOTUS decisions against State authorities. The feds can also CHOOSE to NOT enforce SCOTUS opinions. tpaine  posted on  2015-08-01   13:43:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #236. To: tpaine (#234) State authorities do not get to choose if they find OSHA agreeable or not. They comply or get sanctioned into oblivion. They do not get to invoke the tpaine imaginary screw you provision of the Supremacy Clause. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/88/case.html Gade v National Solid Waste Ass’n, 505 US 88, 108-09 (1992) [excerpt] IV We recognize that “the States have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries, and that as part of their power to protect the public health, safety, and other valid interests they have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions.” Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773, 792 (1975); see also Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 731 (1963); Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 122 (1889). But under the Supremacy Clause, from which our pre-emption doctrine is derived, “’any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’” Felder v. Casey, 487 U. S., at 138 (quoting Free v. Bland, 369 U. S. 663, 666 (1962)); see also De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 357 (1976) (“[E]ven state regulation designed to protect vital state interests must give way to paramount federal legislation”). We therefore reject petitioner’s argument that the State’s interest in licensing various occupations can save from OSH Act pre-emption those provisions that directly and substantially affect workplace safety. We also reject petitioner’s argument that the Illinois licensing acts do not regulate occupational safety and health at all, but are instead a “pre-condition” to employment. By that reasoning, the OSHA regulations themselves would not be considered occupational standards. SARA, however, makes clear that the training of employees engaged in hazardous waste operations is an occupational safety and health issue, and that certification requirements before an employee may engage in such work are occupational safety and health standards. See supra, at 92. Because nei- [109] ther of the OSH Act’s saving provisions are implicated, and because Illinois does not have an approved state plan under § 18(b), the state licensing acts are pre-empted by the OSH Act to the extent they establish occupational safety and health standards for training those who work with hazardous wastes. Like the Court of Appeals, we do not specifically consider which of the licensing acts’ provisions will stand or fall under the pre-emption analysis set forth above. nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-01   13:55:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 236.         There are no replies to Comment # 236. End Trace Mode for Comment # 236. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com