Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 26, 2016, 10:37:09 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97431 Posts in 2328 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] Print
Author Topic: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)  (Read 269929 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1300 on: March 16, 2016, 03:41:01 PM »



But we on the the right know how that has worked out in the past:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/148207-is-merrick-garland-a-liberal-the-supreme-court-prospects-political-leanings-could-make-him-a-safe
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13938


« Reply #1301 on: March 16, 2016, 07:48:27 PM »

Big government becomes even more ravenous as the economy sputters and will do what it needs to do to fill it's coffers.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1302 on: March 16, 2016, 08:06:29 PM »

From Breitbart on Supreme nominee - it sound like we really don't know how he stands on the issues:
What are the odds that someone from Harvard votes Democrat .  What are the odds that someone who is Jewish votes for Democrats?  What are the odds Obama would nominate someone he interviewed and determined he is to the right of the center.  I know.  Just because he may vote for Democrats does not mean he would be partisan on the SCOTUS.  Just thinking out loud:

5 Facts You Need to Know About Merrick Garland

Merrick B. GarlandThe Associated Press
by JOEL B. POLLAK16 Mar 20163,925
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Here are five quick facts you need to know about Garland.

1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.

2. Garland has favored environmental regulations. As SCOTUSblog noted in 2010: “On environmental law, Judge Garland has in a number of cases favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups.” That could be very important, with Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the balance.

3. Garland’s positions on abortion and social issues are murky. Some liberals are worried that Garland may not be unambiguously pro-choice. Richard Wolf of USA Today writes: “During 19 years at the D.C. Circuit, Garland has managed to keep a low profile. The court’s largely administrative docket has left him without known positions on issues such as abortion or the death penalty.”

4. Garland would maintain the Court’s demographic profile. He is the second Chicagoan Obama has nominated. He is no “wise Latina,” and is the first man Obama has chosen. But Garland, like Scalia, is a graduate of Harvard Law, keeping the number of Crimson justices at five. If confirmed, he would also be the fourth Jew on the Court, preserving the odd exclusion of evangelical Protestants.

5. Republicans have supported Garland in the past. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)41%
 in particular has been outspoken in his support for Garland as the best Republicans could expect from the Clinton administration. More recently, he suggested he would welcome Garland’s nomination but predicted that Obama would make a more ideological pick. That makes Garland harder for the GOP to oppose.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1303 on: March 16, 2016, 09:13:07 PM »

From Levin's Conservative Review.  Apparently Merrick said:

"If you believe in the limits of federal power, then you will be in the minority"

Conclusion =>  this is all we need to know.  The guy is a liberal!

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/what-conservatives-need-to-know-about-merrick-garland


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13938


« Reply #1304 on: March 16, 2016, 09:17:30 PM »

From Levin's Conservative Review.  Apparently Merrick said:

"If you believe in the limits of federal power, then you will be in the minority"

Conclusion =>  this is all we need to know.  The guy is a liberal!

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/what-conservatives-need-to-know-about-merrick-garland



leftist, not liberal.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 486


« Reply #1305 on: March 16, 2016, 09:43:50 PM »

From Levin's Conservative Review.  Apparently Merrick said:

"If you believe in the limits of federal power, then you will be in the minority"

Conclusion =>  this is all we need to know.  The guy is a liberal!

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/what-conservatives-need-to-know-about-merrick-garland



leftist, not liberal.

I thought the two were the same. What's the difference? I ask in earnest.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1306 on: March 17, 2016, 12:11:21 AM »

[Leftist, Liberal] "I thought the two were the same. What's the difference? I ask in earnest."

My understanding follows; G M can add to this or correct it.

Liberal is a mis-used term taken by the left for its softer sound.

Liberal, open to new behavior or opinions, synonyms, wide-ranging, broad-based.

Leftism is the orthodoxy of statism that people, especially in certain demographic groups aren't allowed to stray from.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13938


« Reply #1307 on: March 17, 2016, 08:46:39 AM »

[Leftist, Liberal] "I thought the two were the same. What's the difference? I ask in earnest."

My understanding follows; G M can add to this or correct it.

Liberal is a mis-used term taken by the left for its softer sound.

Liberal, open to new behavior or opinions, synonyms, wide-ranging, broad-based.

Leftism is the orthodoxy of statism that people, especially in certain demographic groups aren't allowed to stray from.



Exactly.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1308 on: March 18, 2016, 09:40:24 AM »

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/17/supreme-court-reporters-debunk-judicial-crisis/209359
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1309 on: March 18, 2016, 09:55:20 AM »

Second post

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/18/upshot/potential-for-the-most-liberal-supreme-court-in-decades.html?_r=0
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1310 on: March 18, 2016, 11:37:10 AM »

Comments and questions regarding Merrick Garland:

1)  He is bad on the Second Amendment.  How bad?  I would like to read his opinions.

2)  He is moderate on other things compared to others Pres. O. might have chosen.  How moderate?

3) He has largely hidden his views in hopes of someday getting to this stage.  Yet Obama trusts him to be liberal-left.  What are his views?

4) Republicans could 'slow-walk' this, but then there becomes public pressure to vote and confirm as the guy comes across as smart and qualified.

5) What are the odds that Republicans win the Presidency and the Senate? (Less than 50-50.)

6) And if they won both, or the Pres but not the Senate, what nominee could they get through an angry Democratic Senate that currently needs 60 votes to take a vote?

7) If Hillary wins, will she keep Garland or start over and go younger and further left?

8 ) If Republicans fail to take any action, will that hurt them?  How much?

9) If Republicans who promised no action on this nomination, then act on it, will that hurt them?

10) My sense is this election is going down the tubes and the Senate being too busy to take up a Supreme Court nomination is an excuse only makes it worse.  

11) The other possibility is to take this up, run through the whole process, run out the clock, take a vote, have every Senator vote their own conscience, not give the President the benefit of the doubt on his nominees as you might for a cabinet position.  The standard he should be held to has a name, Antonin Scalia.  

12) What the hell is a "moderate" or "centrist" on the question of whether or not to rip up the words and original meanings of the constitution that you have taken an oath to uphold and replace them with the personal views of a 9 person politburo?  In my view, you are either an originalist/textualist or you are a traitor/saboteur/communist revolutionary.  That he is an ivy league educated, white male who speaks well, is considered centrist and wears business suits doesn't preclude the latter.

The living breathing portion of the constitution is called the amendment process.  Yes, times change, so change the text of the constitution by way of 2/3rds of both chambers of congress 3/4 of the state legislatures, not by selecting five willing elites.  
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 12:41:14 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1311 on: March 19, 2016, 02:31:55 AM »

IMHO Reps need to stand firm, even against this politically shrewd choice by Obama and BE HONEST about it, none of this "Let the people decide" crap.

Especially when a nominee would change the balance of the court (as versus a lib replacing a lib or a conservative a conservative) and the country is in the middle of an election, well then wait until the lame duck session.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1312 on: March 19, 2016, 12:11:23 PM »

IMHO Reps need to stand firm, even against this politically shrewd choice by Obama and BE HONEST about it, none of this "Let the people decide" crap.

Especially when a nominee would change the balance of the court (as versus a lib replacing a lib or a conservative a conservative) and the country is in the middle of an election, well then wait until the lame duck session.

Well put!  We are hearing 'let the people decide' without hearing what our side is of what is at stake.  Where you say, be honest, I would add, be specific and be persuasive.  I have written about Ted Cruz reaching out in this campaign only to the people who already agree with him (or us) on various things.  This is the time to step up and be a national leader, be a historic leader, not a niche candidate in a crowded field.  Someone needs to make the case for what we are talking about out loud.  He has hundreds of millions to spend on a message, why not make it a positive and important/crucial one. He should give a national address on this.  This is an opportunity, not a problem.  And this is where you fly by DT if he can't keep up, stuck on the wrong side of limits and liberties, see Kelo for example.  It is also where you hold this stand even if you lose the Presidency and majority of the Senate.  This isn't a continuing resolution or a zoning variance; this is the definition of our country we are fighting to preserve.  "A Republic, if you can keep it".

Merrick Garland is among the top judges in the country serving in a time where Judicial rulings have shrunk the constitutional limits on government and allowed its expansion of power over our lives and liberties which keep getting smaller and smaller.  The Honorable Judge Garland would be a perfect pick if continuing down this path of national destruction was acceptable.  But it isn't.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 12:21:13 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1313 on: March 19, 2016, 06:47:32 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-campaign-veterans-court-nominee-stephanie-cutter.html?_r=0
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Guest
« Reply #1314 on: March 19, 2016, 08:17:50 PM »

BHO's newfound respect for Supreme Court decorum contains a little irony:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/19/obama-irony-alert-the-supreme-court-should-be-above-politics/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1315 on: March 28, 2016, 04:54:34 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-feds-have-resumed-a-controversial-program-that-lets-cops-take-stuff-and-keep-it/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1316 on: April 01, 2016, 12:15:18 AM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/george-mason-university-to-rename-law-school-after-justice-antonin-scalia-1459452145
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1317 on: April 03, 2016, 08:28:32 AM »


By Juan Williams
April 1, 2016 6:41 p.m. ET
298 COMMENTS

As Republicans and Democrats wrangle over Judge Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination to replace the late Antonin Scalia and whether or not to hold confirmation hearings, attention has been distracted from a fight of far more historical consequence.

Over the past half century, regardless of whether a liberal or a conservative resides in the White House, the critical issue facing any Supreme Court nominee is where he or she stands on the political contest of wills over how to read the Constitution.

In general the conservatives in this fight favor an “originalist” or “plain text” reading of the Constitution to limit the role of the courts to interpreting what the document and the Framers meant. Liberals regard the Constitution as a “living document” that lends itself to modern interpretations by judges, who may extend rights to groups not mentioned or considered in the Constitution or its amendments.

The first time I heard the originalist argument from conservatives was at a 1981 San Francisco conference organized by Edwin Meese, President Reagan’s then-White House counselor for policy and the future attorney general. While covering the Reagan White House, I saw Mr. Meese seek judges for the federal bench who abided by a strict reading of the Constitution, hoping to counter years of subjective interpretation—also known as legislating from the bench—by liberals such as justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall.

Beginning during Reagan’s time as California’s governor, Mr. Meese—a former prosecutor who served the governor in a variety of roles, including legal-affairs secretary and chief of staff—sought judges for state courts who stuck to the law as written by the legislator. That boiled down to selecting judges willing to apply strict sentencing guidelines to get tough with disruptive protests on college campuses, far-left radicals and criminals.

After becoming attorney general in early 1985, Mr. Meese told the American Bar Association in a July address that it was time for federal judges to get back to basics: “A Constitution that is viewed as only what the judges say it is—is no longer a Constitution in the true sense,” he said. “Those who framed the Constitution chose their words carefully, they debated at great length the minutest points . . . It is incumbent on the Court to determine what that meaning was.”

To that end Mr. Meese advised the president, after Chief Justice Warren Burger decided to retire in 1986, to elevate conservative Justice William Rehnquist to chief justice and to nominate Judge Scalia for the open seat on the court. When Lewis Powell retired the following year, Mr. Meese recommended as his replacement Judge Robert Bork, a staunch Constitutional originalist.

The elevation of Justice Rehnquist and appointment of Judge Scalia were confirmed, but Judge Bork’s nomination was famously defeated by a Democratic Senate in an episode remarkable for its vitriol. ( Anthony Kennedy was eventually confirmed instead.)

The Reagan administration was a judicial watershed in other ways: The careers of Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts trace to that period, and other federal judges appointed during the Reagan administration remain in place today, including Laurence Silberman, Edith Jones and Frank Easterbrook.

When Reagan nominated Judge Scalia for the Supreme Court, Mr. Meese told reporters that he was chosen for “his commitment to the interpretation of the law rather than being a lawmaker.”

For three decades Scalia championed the originalist approach to the Constitution. In his scathing dissent last year from the 5-4 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, Judge Scalia noted that the justices had discovered, in the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection provision, a constitutional right “overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”

Scalia lost that fight but won others as he forced his colleagues to think hard about the Constitution and Bill of Rights in making their decisions. A major win came in 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller upholding what he saw as the original intent of the Second Amendment to protect a citizen’s right to own a gun.

In today’s debate regarding Merrick Garland’s nomination to the court, much of the discussion concerns whether or not he is a “centrist.” But the real question, for both sides, is how he regards the Constitution. On that point it is clear from his record that Judge Garland is firmly in the “living document” camp. The push-pull over the Constitution and the Supreme Court is a battle without end, and in the current phase with the eight-person bench likely to divide 4-4 on important cases, the contrast between the court with Scalia on it and the court with Judge Garland or any other Democratic nominee couldn’t be greater.

Mr. Williams, a political analyst for Fox News and columnist for the Hill, is the author of “We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers’ Vision of America,” out April 5 from Crown.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1318 on: April 03, 2016, 05:45:53 PM »



http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/01/florida-governor-signs-bill-requiring-ac
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1319 on: April 04, 2016, 09:28:01 AM »


An obvious reform in the pursuit of property rights, liberty, due process and fighting the abuse of government, hard to believe this isn't already the law, but it is an important ray of hope nonetheless.

Shouldn't a conviction rather than a charge be required to keep any property permanently?

From previous posts, the total value of government seizures now exceeds all private theft in this country.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1320 on: April 09, 2016, 04:31:30 PM »

I guess this could go under liberalism progressivism which in my view is regressivism.

What does one's background race religion or sex have to do with interpreting the Constitution?:  Do we need Hindus Buddhists, Muslims on the SCOTUS?  3 babes is not enough?
We have too many Jews?   Not enough who also speak Spanish?   We need some from California?  I doubt very much she is implying we need more strong female or Latino conservatives on the bench but would this placate Sotomayor?  Truth is it ain't about that is it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Supreme-Court-Sotomayor/2016/04/09/id/723045/?ns_mail_uid=95994711&ns_mail_job=1663134_04092016&s=al&dkt_nbr=yrbevgkw
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1321 on: May 21, 2016, 10:38:37 PM »

A point I have been making via my expressions of Ninth Amendment theory.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/05/03/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-is-a-natural-right-not-a-constitutional-right/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1322 on: May 23, 2016, 08:32:43 AM »


If I might say so, this is quite a valid and profound point.

Maybe more obvious to more people, freedom of speech is a fundamental right whether it had been put to words and given and amendment number or not.  The right to have a plan in place to protect you and your family is perhaps a higher right than speech, whether enumerated or not.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1323 on: June 27, 2016, 08:17:30 PM »

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/427_pa9skxwv.pdf
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1324 on: July 11, 2016, 03:36:06 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/11/the-notorious-rbg-gives-a-potentially-notorious-interview-with-the-new-york-times/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


The Notorious RBG gives a potentially notorious interview with the New York Times – UPDATED
By Jonathan H. Adler July 11 at 10:08 AM

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Last week, I noted comments Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave to Mark Sherman of the Associated Press about the pending election and its potential influence on the Court.  The broader interview was unusually candid for a sitting Supreme Court justice, but it was just a hint of what was to come.

Yesterday, the New York Times published another interview with Justice Ginsburg. The article, by Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak, is nothing short of astounding.

In the Liptak interview, Justice Ginsburg reiterates and magnifies her concerns about a Trump presidency, and makes several other comments about cases and issues that are quite uncharacteristic of a sitting Supreme Court justice.

On Trump:

    “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

    It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.

    “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

For the record, I share many of her concerns about Trump, and will not support him for President under any circumstances, but these comments seem quite inappropriate for a sitting member of the federal judiciary.

I clerked on a federal appellate court in an election year, and the judge for which I clerked would not even attend a post-election party due to the appearance such conduct would give (despite having been active in partisan politics before joining the bench). In the unlikely (and horrifying) event of Bush-v.-Gore-like election litigation, I do not see how Justice Ginsburg could refuse to recuse after these sorts of comments.

Justice Ginsburg’s comments on the election were striking, but they were not the only thing remarkable about the interview. She held forth on many issues, including some faced by federal courts.

On U.S. v. Texas, in which the Court deadlocked on the lawfulness of the Obama Administration’s immigration reforms, she said:

    “Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said. Instead of a single sentence announcing the tie, she suggested, a five-justice majority would have issued a precedent-setting decision dealing a lasting setback to Mr. Obama and the immigrants he had tried to protect.

    Justice Ginsburg noted that the case was in an early stage and could return to the Supreme Court. “By the time it gets back here, there will be nine justices,” she said.

    She also assessed whether the court might have considered a narrow ruling rejecting the suit, brought by Texas and 25 other states, on the ground that they had not suffered the sort of direct and concrete injury that gave them standing to sue. Some of the chief justice’s writingssuggested that he might have found the argument attractive.

    “That would have been hard for me,” Justice Ginsburg said, “because I’ve been less rigid than some of my colleagues on questions of standing. There was a good argument to be made, but I would not have bought that argument because of the damage it could do” in other cases.

Justice Ginsburg also identified Citizens United as the one case she’d like to see overturned. She also said Heller was a “very bad decision.” As originally posted, the story reported that Justice Ginsburg added “that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.” For whatever reason, that line was removed and no longer appears in the online version of the article. [UPDATE: The missing language on Heller has now been restored to the article.]

UPDATE: It appears that this is the second time within the past week that comments from an interview with Justice Ginsburg as originally published were later removed. The other example, caught by Rick Hasen, is here.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1325 on: July 11, 2016, 04:26:26 PM »

We wouldn't want rule by the elites even if they were smarter and wiser than us, and they aren't!    We are down to two supreme court justices you still want to uphold the Constitution.   The moderates and the liberals on the court are nothing more than partisan political hacks.   Ginsberg is no wiser than Charles Blow and no more impartial than Chuck Schumer.

If not for her and this Court  the next president would have to face checks and balances on his or her power,  as designed and intended.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1326 on: July 12, 2016, 06:07:18 AM »

"Re: My Constitutional Law Prof at it again"

CD,
You had a class with her?
I read she was at Columbia.   Weren't you at G town?

She seems like a nice lady if one can get past the liberal ideology.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1327 on: July 14, 2016, 12:26:18 AM »

I was at Columbia.  She was my Constitutional Law prof.  We did not like each other very much.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1328 on: July 14, 2016, 09:19:57 AM »

I was at Columbia.  She was my Constitutional Law prof.  We did not like each other very much.

A badge of honor!  Weren't you more liberal back then?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1329 on: July 15, 2016, 03:39:22 AM »

No.  This was 1980.  I had thought I was Left because of my opposition to the Vietnam War and to my being sent there during the '60-70s but with my study of economics beginning in 1975 at U. of PA I realized that it was the Right that was about freedom.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1330 on: July 15, 2016, 02:27:49 PM »

So what was RGB like?  You are a vet and was in VN? 

I asked my nephew who went to Harvard Law if he met Dershowitz.  He would only say he didn't like him and Dersh was full of himself.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1331 on: July 15, 2016, 03:13:15 PM »

Wisdom before law school?  A rare case of it!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1332 on: July 18, 2016, 09:57:11 AM »

"You are a vet and was in VN? "


 huh
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1333 on: July 23, 2016, 08:09:15 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/22/terry-mcauliffe-felon-voting-rights-virginia-supreme-court/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1334 on: August 02, 2016, 04:07:17 PM »

Already too late:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/12-reasons-why-federal-judiciary-is-irremediably-broken
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1335 on: August 09, 2016, 03:13:36 AM »

The courage to make some solid points in there.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2182


« Reply #1336 on: August 10, 2016, 12:06:10 PM »

http://www.lpbr.net/2016/07/relic-how-our-constituion-undermines.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1337 on: August 10, 2016, 12:40:12 PM »

What we need is an even MORE powerful Executive Branch?!?  Seriously?!? 

How about this:  The Executive is already too fg powerful-- in great part due to the creation of a fourth branch of government, the Administrative Agencies, which are a subset of the Executive.  They are beyond the control of the voters, and exercise both legislative and judicial powers.

How about this:  Inaction by Congress is the correct response when there is not sufficient agreement and compromise.  Plenty got done in the 80s and 90s but now that the Progressives want to "fundamentally transform" America and aren't getting their way fast enough they want to change our Constitution so they can get their way right away.

NO, NO, and NO.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1338 on: August 14, 2016, 11:03:06 AM »

I don't know if others here get Hillsdale Colleges publication.  This issues piece on the importance of who is the next Supreme Court Justice is succinctly explained here.

The liberal judges nearly always vote "in bloc" and in partisan fashion.  90% of the time they vote in sinc.
One more liberal judge and the country will almost surely not be able to turn back especially as long as immigrants keep flooding the country with less than traditional conservative views with regard to role of government.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/next-supreme-court-justice/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6026


« Reply #1339 on: August 14, 2016, 06:37:58 PM »

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/muslim-flight-attendant-controversy-reveals-the-lefts-ignorance-of-religious-liberty
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1340 on: August 14, 2016, 09:35:39 PM »

Interesting piece.  Please post it on the First Amendment thread as well.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1341 on: September 17, 2016, 12:48:30 AM »

On September 17, 1787 the Framers of the Constitution met for a last time to sign the document they had created.  Every year we celebrate September 17 as Constitution Day.  Please take time to consider the magnificence of our Constitution.  Consider the wisdom and prescience of the Framers.  Share your knowledge of and reverence for the Constitution with your children and grandchildren.  They may not hear it elsewhere.

We know the first ten Amendments to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.  But did you know there were seventeen proposed Amendments to start with?  Many are aware that twelve Amendments were proposed by Congress and ten of those were subsequently ratified by the States.  One of the other two was ratified in 1992 and became the 27th Amendment.   The other one has never been ratified.

But James Madison’s original draft of proposed amendments had seventeen Articles (proposed amendments).  The House approved all of those, but the Senate modified and combined them into twelve Amendments, and those were then proposed by Congress.

Except for one.

Madison’s original Article 16 was simply dropped in the 2nd draft.  It read;

“Art. 16.   The powers delegated by the constitution to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial the powers vested in the legislative or executive.”

It shouldn’t have been dropped.  Today there is a clear and ongoing violation of the separation of powers idea envisioned by the Founders.  It’s likely that Congress simply thought there was no need to include something in the Bill of Rights which had been made so obvious in the body of the Constitution.  But then, they didn’t know today’s federal government.  They couldn’t have imagined the bloated, wasteful, intrusive leviathan we have allowed the federal government to become.

But we have a remedy!

The Framers were wise and humble enough to know there would need to be a way to adjust and amend the Constitution from time to time.  They also knew the federal government was certain to exceed its lawful power and would need to be reined in.  And they knew the federal government would never propose amendments to reduce its own power.  So they gave us Article V as the way for the States to reclaim their sovereignty.  We can straighten out that separation of powers problem.  We can restore the limits on federal power intended by the Founders.  We can return power to the States and to “we the people”.

By the way; did you know the push for the Bill of Rights was the first time there was an application for an Article V Convention?  James Madison had promised a group of Baptists in Virginia that he would push the Bill of Rights through Congress.  But just in case he forgot his promise, Virginia filed the very first Article V application.  Madison, being an honorable man, kept his promise and the need for a convention never materialized.  But the tool was there and was ready to be used if needed.

Don’t you think it’s about time we used it?  Isn’t it time for the States to stand up against the over reach of an out of control federal government?  How bad do things have to get before we act?

Go to our website at www.conventionofstates.com.  Sign our petition.  Tell your friends and family about us.  Check out our opportunities to volunteer.  Be a part of history - join our movement today!  Future generations are counting on us to preserve their liberty.  We can’t let them down.

Thanks and kudos to Brent Smith, aka “The Common Constitutionalist” for giving me something new to research.

For Liberty,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8243


« Reply #1342 on: September 17, 2016, 01:56:55 PM »

I support  Madison's original article 16 but I don't support the convention of the states. Open to further persuasion.

"Art. 16.   The powers delegated by the constitution to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial the powers vested in the legislative or executive.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37764


« Reply #1343 on: September 17, 2016, 07:20:51 PM »

"but I don't support the convention of the states"

AGREED!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!