Good point; but my question was directed at NothingBerger who seems to think that the Constitution can be perfectly interpreted by the Scotus.
Perhaps I should have used Roe v Wade?
Shots fired at Central Michigan University
- Thread starter Bourbon
- Start date
Good point; but my question was directed at NothingBerger who seems to think that the Constitution can be perfectly interpreted by the Scotus.
Perhaps I should have used Roe v Wade?
Knowing the penchant of the DOJ for using their unlimited access to the public coffers against a defendants limited resources to force plea deals I would say the high millions, the courts wouldn't be able to handle the amount of cases which they would inevitably bring and even if they could the number of people who would plead out and the number of courts and juries that would rule in an unconstitutional manner would be numerous and the Fed's would end up the victors in the end.
The source material is in the notes on the wiki page, there's, also, a section on the federalist and anti-federalist papers with a couple of direct quotes in the reading itself, the anti-federalists were opposed to judicial review but they were opposed to ratification entirely.
Roe V. Wade wasn't judicial review it was in effect the addition of a new amendment to the bill of rights without going through the necessary procedures outlined in Article 5, the 10th amendment is clear that it is a State's rights issue.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
which would also then depend on the courts removing the constraints they'e placed upon us for redress for grievances. as to the plea bargains, only the stupid would admit guilt to crimes not committed.
without a bill of rights, and I saw the source material references. I guess i'll research them later.
You mean the perp woman hater with a gun? That perp?
Translation: it was legislating from the bench.
How do you know this 19 year black man hated women shit-for-brains?
It was Abraham Lincoln who supposedly said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Apparently the deranged inheritors of that great man's party...especially the ones who broke off to become libertarians...are of the opposite opinion.
In a thread I started a while back, I suggested that the greatest threat to our nation comes from the many citizens we have who simply do not want to be governed.
THEY want the Constitution to be a suicide pact!
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...LOVE-THE-CONSTITUTION-quot-CRAP-IN-THIS-FORUM!
Apparently the deranged inheritors of that great man's party...especially the ones who broke off to become libertarians...are of the opposite opinion.
In a thread I started a while back, I suggested that the greatest threat to our nation comes from the many citizens we have who simply do not want to be governed.
THEY want the Constitution to be a suicide pact!
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...LOVE-THE-CONSTITUTION-quot-CRAP-IN-THIS-FORUM!
A) how would the right of redress prevent the DOJ from over crowding the courts?
B) whose to say the courts and jurors would rule/vote correctly, I mean take a look around this forum, would you really want to trust a jury of these idiots with your inalienable rights?
C) What would a Congress passing overtly unconstitutional legislation care about the right of redress
to begin with? The judicial review IMHO acts as an effective check on legislative overreach.
Agreed.
Ya I think I'm going to see if I can request The Supreme Court and the Constitution from the library, if they can't get it it's $20 on amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Constitution-Charles-Austin/dp/1240112769
I might be able to get the Law Review articles off of Jstor.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
he also said..........
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_101160
SmarterthanYou
rebel
eventually people will vote out elected representatives who keep losing money to lawsuits.
they don't do it now, didn't do it in the past. what we do know is that government operates mostly outside the law now and frames innocent people, kills innocent people, so what do you propose to fix it? or do you prefer status quo?
the current state of politics involves money. people who want to remain in office will not want to anger constituents who keep losing money to their overreach
Okay...he said lots of things...none of which justify making our Constitution into the suicide pact some of you are aiming for.
Lol that was not a Lincoln quote it was the dissenting opinion of Justice Jackson from his dissent in Terminiello v. City of Chicago in which he argued for banning unpopular speech, like I said it isn't just the 2nd amendment that the left hates, they want to eliminate the 2nd so we are unable to defend the 1st.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._City_of_Chicago
Darth Omar
Russian asset
My money says if this shooter used a handgun instead of an AR the media drops it like a hot potato.
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
You have more faith in the masses than I do.
I prefer getting more strict constructionalists and originalists in the courts.
$21 trillion in debt and counting, it would seem that the state has no problem spending the peoples money especially since they can always print more fiat currency.
Last edited:
They'll drop it either way, the shooter was black, doesn't fit their narrative.
Which is not the same thing as judicial review.
How do you win a war then?