Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: Separations of Powers Not: ‘Take Away His Vote’ — Dem Congresswoman Wants to Nullify Justice Thomas‘ Rulings With ’Retroactive Recusal’
Source:
TB.com
URL Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sep ... ings-with-retroactive-recusal/
Published: Oct 5, 2011
Author: NEN
Post Date: 2011-10-05 15:34:05 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 7883
Comments: 13
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
The lunatic left is scared to death that Supreme Court is going to toss Obamacare into the ash bin of history, just in time for the 2012 election.
Nullify the stupid bitch with a post birth abortion.
I think that will have to wait until Nov 2012...... unfortunately...
"CHANGE" you can step in..... And their asses right along with it.... LOL.....
"CHANGE" you can step in..... I think she is crazy if she thinks the Legislature can impose retroactive recusal upon the Judiciary. There may be such a thing as recusal, but at the SCOTUS level the decision to recuse resides with the individual justice. There is no mechanism to impose such a thing. If Rep. Slaughter believes a Justice should be impeached, that can be pursued. SCOTUS Justice Samuel Chase was impeached, but his Senate trial ended in acquittal in 1805.
The majority of States have sued to strike down the Health Care law as an unconstitutional expansion of Federal power. If the Court does not strike down the mandate, there may well be enough States to ratify a Constitutional amendment to clearly and unequivocally declare such power to reside with the States or the people, but not with the Federal government.
The Amendment Process....... The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two- thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd). The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. Since I don't see the first happening unless the voters are really pissed off and vote out all the Dems in 2012, then that leaves the second route, which has never been done.... And if you do go the second route and convene a Constitutional Convention aren't you opening the door for other less desirable Amendments to be introduced and voted on at the same time you try to make an Amendment to strike down ObamaCare??? Isn't that the main reason a Constitutional Convention has never been convened???
"CHANGE" you can step in..... 26 states sued in the 11th Circuit. Virginia sued in the 4th Circuit. If the people voted out incumbent Dems and Pubs in 2012, we could call it merit-based voting. As for a constitutional convention, if the people can't get satisfaction from their elected officials and take matters into their own hands, they are, after all, the sovereigns. At a convention, they can do as they please. Remember, the convention at Philadelphia was convened to recommend amendments to the Articles of Convention. History of the Philadelphia convention is massaged to claim that the delegates present voted unanimously for its proposal. Of course, Rhode Island refused to send delegates. The NY delegates, except for Hamilton, walked out and no vote of the state could be cast. It was a union between the states ratifying the new constitution. Washington took office with a union of eleven states. North Carolina ratified about six months later. Rhode Island held out for about a year. By way of amendment, the people could choose to replace the entire text of the Constitution with [fill in the blank]. They could adopt a parliamentary system of government if that's what they want. The people, acting in their sovereign capacity, do not need permission from the Federal government they created in order to act. If the people are driven to take matters into their own hands, nobody knows what will come of it.
In a Constitutional Convention, each state would get one vote. California would have the same vote as Wyoming. Given the political composition of the country, it is implausible to get 34 states to agree to anything really radical. It is even more implausible to get 38 state legislatures to ratify anything really radical. I have long supported calling a Constitution Convention to clarify the meaning of the 10th Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause to re-balance the power between the states and the federal government. Given the growing number of areas (Obamacare, medical marijuana, regulation of locally grown and consumed farm products, gun control, etc.) where the states and the federal government are in conflict, I can see this happening within the next 10 years.
10A was effectively narrowed by 14A.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
I actually agree with you but for a different reason. I'd like 4A refocused on probable cause to exclude or sharply narrow the doctrine of "reasonable suspicion" as an element of it. I'd also like to see the "takings clause" redefined and limited.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Yea we definately need a lot of that in 2012!!!
"CHANGE" you can step in..... Yes, it has not been, and is not immediately likely. But if the people continue to be squeezed economically, it could well happen in the not too distant future. Those jobless or struggling to get by know we bailed out the banksters who are still living it up. If the government went into default — certainly not impossible — and social security and other checks did not get sent, somebody would have to explain that there is nothing in the Trust Fund but the full faith and downgraded credit of the government. The debt is gigantic and growing and all plans are to increase it. At some point it seems this debt must overwhelm the country and either lead to default or to massive inflation that destroys the value of savings and pensions. We can unite the middle class and the poor just by making the middle class poor. I believe we need to restore the 10th amendment and the interstate commerce clause to what they were before the politicians and the courts perverted them. Our Federal (not national) government was a large republic comprised of smaller republics. We seemingly need to restore the principle that the States created the Union, and not the other way around. We need to correct notions such as this: and this: and recognize that Reagan was right: Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981
Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats -- Benjamin Tucker 
#2. To: CZ82 (#0)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Nullify the stupid bitch with a post birth abortion.
My dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than the self appointed Messiah!!!
#4. To: jwpegler (#1)
The lunatic left is scared to death that Supreme Court is going to toss Obamacare into the ash bin of history, just in time for the 2012 election.
My dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than the self appointed Messiah!!!
#5. To: CZ82 (#0)
#6. To: jwpegler, CZ82 (#1)
The lunatic left is scared to death that Supreme Court is going to toss Obamacare into the ash bin of history, just in time for the 2012 election.
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
If the Court does not strike down the mandate, there may well be enough States to ratify a Constitutional amendment to clearly and unequivocally declare such power to reside with the States or the people, but not with the Federal government.
My dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than the self appointed Messiah!!!
#8. To: CZ82 (#7)
Since I don't see the first happening unless the voters are really pissed off and vote out all the Dems in 2012, then that leaves the second route, which has never been done.... And if you do go the second route and convene a Constitutional Convention aren't you opening the door for other less desirable Amendments to be introduced and voted on at the same time you try to make an Amendment to strike down ObamaCare??? Isn't that the main reason a Constitutional Convention has never been convened???
#9. To: nolu chan (#8)
By way of amendment, the people could choose to replace the entire text of the Constitution with [fill in the blank]. They could adopt a parliamentary system of government if that's what they want.
Honest Socialism
#10. To: jwpegler (#9)
I have long supported calling a Constitution Convention to clarify the meaning of the 10th Amendment
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#11. To: jwpegler (#9)
I have long supported calling a Constitution Convention to clarify the meaning of the 10th Amendment
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#12. To: nolu chan (#8)
If the people voted out incumbent Dems and Pubs in 2012, we could call it merit-based voting.
My dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than the self appointed Messiah!!!
#13. To: jwpegler (#9)
Given the growing number of areas (Obamacare, medical marijuana, regulation of locally grown and consumed farm products, gun control, etc.) where the states and the federal government are in conflict, I can see this happening within the next 10 years.
These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states.
The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]