View Full Version : Constitutionality pretty much summed up here
We're no longer in a republic... this woman kicks ass! Basically, thanks to the SCOTUS, she said we're not a republic, but instead a monarchy! I think I'm in love...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dEimFzVnZkw
She's actually right, the court in Marbury Vs Madison took powers upon themselves to overturn laws. That power is not granted in the Constitution. Ironically both Thom Hartman (liberal) and Newt Gingrich are agreement and have had discussions about this subject on Thoms show.
Troublco
03-15-2013, 12:10
As she put it, this country is operating as a monarchy, courtesy of the Federal Government granting itself any power it so chooses.
And she's not bad to look at.
Sort of, the Supreme Court is the closest thing to a Monarchy that we have. They are unelected and appointed for life. The Constitution never gave them the power to overrule laws like they do. That was a power that they usurped.
Here is Thom Hartman talking about what the first poster posted. Again, he has had Newt Gingrich on his show talking about this subject and they were in agreement. So please don't dismiss this as liberal vs conservative stuff. I agree with both sides on many issues. This video is pretty much a series of quotes by the founding fathers. Newt Gingrich actually wrote a book about this. I would post his words about it, but I don't know where to find them and do for Thom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sWecRfLov4&feature=youtu.be&t=4m31s
Please start at 430 to get to the point and skip over the parts that might piss some conservatives off before then.
Good video nynco - skip to the 4:30 mark if you do not want to suffer through the lib nonsense.
If the Supreme Court loses judiciary review, who takes it up? The people? The same people who re-elected BHO?
What will set me into motion is when BHO replaces another couple of justices within the next 4 years.
It's already over. Most just haven't noticed yet.
It's already over. Most just haven't noticed yet.
It will be if that's the position you take.....
Yeah I thought I cut out the parts before 430. I just wanted to stick to something that would not anger people. As to the answer to this quandary, I don't know. I have a hard time conceiving what the country would be like without a court that can do that. I think what the founders wanted was for the court to say it was wrong and for the people to kick out the people who made the laws. It has the possibility of weakening the constitution that way too.
And she's not bad to look at.[Eek3] I risked getting flagged for bandwidth usage at work for that?
Teufelhund
03-15-2013, 13:22
I did start that last video at 4:30 and yes, he is on point. I disagree with his last statement that Congress should pass a law removing the power of Judicial Review from the Supreme Court. There is no reasonable need to pass more legislation which simply states, "you are not allowed to do this thing you were never granted the power to do." Alexander Hamilton made this point when voicing his opposition to the 10th Amendment; I think he was overly optimistic in thinking Congress would abide by the limitation of their power set forth in the Constitution. There are no more angels in the hearts of men than there are unicorns roaming the earth. But since we do have the 10th Amendment, which specifically prohibits the government from usurping power not specifically granted to it, let's just go ahead and hold them to it.
I would say that the congress passing a law or statement that addressed what you said
"you are not allowed to do this thing you were never granted the power to do." would be part of the check and balance process. Congress has been VERY derelict in its duties for policing the courts.
Teufelhund
03-15-2013, 13:40
We have so many laws on the books now, even the people who are paid solely to enforce them cannot keep them all straight. I think it is ridiculous to pass a new law to repeal old ones, for example; if it is repealed, then throw it in the trash. I would love to see a politician run on how many laws he did not pass, as opposed to how many new ones he put in place (oh wait, that just happened and very few of us even noticed).
I misspoke in my previous post; it was the 9th Amendment Hamilton opposed, but for the same reason.
We have so many laws on the books now, even the people who are paid solely to enforce them cannot keep them all straight. I think it is ridiculous to pass a new law to repeal old ones, for example; if it is repealed, then throw it in the trash. I would love to see a politician run on how many laws he did not pass, as opposed to how many new ones he put in place (oh wait, that just happened and very few of us even noticed).
I misspoke in my previous post; it was the 9th Amendment Hamilton opposed, but for the same reason.
I can testify to this... Next door, we have an attorney, her book case is FULL and there are still more books laying around (talking 4" wide by 7" tall) and that is just a fragment of all the laws currently in the system today (both federal and state)... She even said that it would be physically impossible for someone to keep track of every single one.
We have WAY too many laws and sadly the only ones that are ever repealed are the ones that corporations don't want. Heck those same corporations like the for profit corrections (for profit prisons) actively lobby congress for more insane laws so they can incarcerate more people. We need to end all private for profit prisons, it gives economic incentive to imprison us all. PURE INSANITY if you ask me.
Bailey Guns
03-15-2013, 14:38
Damn. That was a powerful statement from KrisAnne Hall.
Aloha_Shooter
03-15-2013, 14:40
I would say that the congress passing a law or statement that addressed what you said[I] would be part of the check and balance process. Congress has been VERY derelict in its duties for policing the courts.
Why do you need a law that will be blocked or ignored when the Tenth Amendment already says all that is needed?
I was referring to admonishing the Supreme Court for usurping powers.
lv2tinker
03-15-2013, 14:56
Damn. That was a powerful statement from KrisAnne Hall.
Amen to that brother.....
Troublco
03-15-2013, 15:21
[Eek3] I risked getting flagged for bandwidth usage at work for that?
I didn't say she was hot...I said she wasn't bad to look at. There's a difference.
Hey Milf is in the top 10 for all porn searches for every state in the nation. I would post the link to that site (which is a hoot to read because it goes world wide for searches) but not sure if that is against mod rules.
Hey Milf is in the top 10 for all porn searches for every state in the nation. I would post the link to that site (which is a hoot to read because it goes world wide for searches) but not sure if that is against mod rules.
I believe a link- if it does not directly go to p0rn is okay... just the link and include NSFW... I think, don't quote me on that.
Ok mods delete this if I am doing the wrong thing. Not safe for work, don't change anything after the "/" and don't open it on a phone because its to a flash site. Its really a great site if you look at it from a sociological aspect. Heck I should start a whole thread about it. Which I guess we still could. I fear this would hijack this thread. Let me ask a mod first... ok
BRB
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.