PDA

View Full Version : Obama held in Contempt of Court



AngelAuthor
Feb 5th 2011, 05:15 PM
Well, his Interior department is in contempt, at any rate, which is practically the same thing.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/03/mr-president-youre-in-contempt/


So it is no small matter when yesterday Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama Interior Department in contempt of court for dismissively ignoring his ruling to cease the job-killing drilling moratorium imposed by President Obama last year.

Feldman wrote: “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction order.”

moonglow
Feb 5th 2011, 06:18 PM
I thought they had started drilling again...:hmm:

rejoice44
Feb 5th 2011, 07:28 PM
I thought they had started drilling again...:hmm:

Obama instituted so many new regulations making it infeasible to drill.

Salazar defends ban
Salazar had said the long-awaited rules were necessary before he would ease off the drilling ban. Still, he gave no indication of when the freeze would end during his remarks today.
"There will always be risks in offshore drilling," Salazar said. "We will only lift the moratorium when I as secretary of the Interior am confident that we have significantly lessened those risks."

NHL Fever
Feb 7th 2011, 01:38 AM
Well, his Interior department is in contempt, at any rate, which is practically the same thing.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/03/mr-president-youre-in-contempt/

This is an article posted by the heritage foundation, so not exactly objective. Regarding the content itself, its an interesting point they make, but I wonder if it's really relevant. The general points that drilling hurts the local economy, hurts the American economy, and is killing jobs etc may well be valid. The contempt of court stance is a bit shaky. They may have gone with saying that the second moratorium was contemptuous, but the direction they took was that the failure to issue licenses was the problem. This is not contempt of court, since the admin is abiding by the ruling. They are however pursuing their goal by different means. Saying this is contempt, is like saying that a president is in contempt if he pardons a prisoner after the court clearly convicted them. Perhaps some might say that, but nevertheless it is within his authority.

Reynolds357
Feb 7th 2011, 02:50 AM
I can not stand Obama. I think his drilling ban is wrong. BUT, I admire him for doing what the founders did. He, just as our early chief executives, pretty much told the courts to shove it.

RabbiKnife
Feb 7th 2011, 02:46 PM
The result should be articles of impeachment issued by the House.

Reynolds357
Feb 7th 2011, 02:51 PM
The result should be articles of impeachment issued by the House.

The result is that Obama is actually doing what the founders intended. He is flexing the muscle of the executive branch; one of the two branches the founders intended to be much stronger than the judicial. The judicial was to be the weakest branch. It has made itsself the strongest branch. As much as I want to see Obama gone from office, I would raise heck if they tried to impeach him for this. I would go march with Sharpton and Jackson in protest.

RabbiKnife
Feb 7th 2011, 03:01 PM
So you wish a king.

Fenris
Feb 7th 2011, 03:13 PM
So you wish a king.

Yeah there's some kind of attitude going on here. The president must obey the courts, as indeed must every other citizen. It's the whole concept behind "rule of law".

Reynolds357
Feb 7th 2011, 04:11 PM
So you wish a king.

As it stands right now, the judiciary is the KING. Congress passes law. President signs it. A few penguins strike it down.
I want a president who will do what our first several presidents did. I do not think they were kings.

Reynolds357
Feb 7th 2011, 04:12 PM
Yeah there's some kind of attitude going on here. The president must obey the courts, as indeed must every other citizen. It's the whole concept behind "rule of law".

If the president and the congress must "obey the courts," how is that equal powers or checks and balances? Sounds like a dictatorship by the courts to me.

Fenris
Feb 7th 2011, 04:19 PM
If the president and the congress must "obey the courts," how is that equal powers or checks and balances? Sounds like a dictatorship by the courts to me.

Obama ordered a ban on drilling in the Gulf. The court ruled that the president/his cabinet do not have the power to do this. Who exactly is acting like a dictator here? Obama for telling the private sector what it can and can't do? Or the court for telling him he doesn't have the power to do so?

Firefighter
Feb 7th 2011, 04:56 PM
If the president and the congress must "obey the courts," how is that equal powers or checks and balances? Sounds like a dictatorship by the courts to me.

You forgot about the other branches having the power to change the constitution, thereby forcing the courts to obey. ;)

RabbiKnife
Feb 7th 2011, 05:00 PM
Oh, and that entire "you can't keep the lights on unless Congress and the President agree to send you money" stuff.

Reynolds357
Feb 7th 2011, 09:16 PM
Oh, and that entire "you can't keep the lights on unless Congress and the President agree to send you money" stuff.

I kind of like Lincoln's approach better. Threaten to jail them for treason. Any group of morons that think murdering a baby is a protected right granted in The Constitution need their offices moved into porta potties.

Reynolds357
Feb 7th 2011, 09:18 PM
You forgot about the other branches having the power to change the constitution, thereby forcing the courts to obey. ;)

They do not need to change The Constitution. They simply need to exercise the powers the early Congress and early Presidents exercised. The courts were not given in The Constitution the power they now have. They took it. It is time The President and Congress take it back.

Reynolds357
Feb 7th 2011, 09:20 PM
Obama ordered a ban on drilling in the Gulf. The court ruled that the president/his cabinet do not have the power to do this. Who exactly is acting like a dictator here? Obama for telling the private sector what it can and can't do? Or the court for telling him he doesn't have the power to do so?

He says he has the power. They say he does not. What makes a penguin right and The President wrong? The court is going to hold Obama in contempt? Who has to EXECUTE the contempt order? Exactly! The courts can not do squat if the EXECUTIVE branch simply calls their bluff. They can write all the rulings and orders they want. They are all worthless without the Executive branch to enforce them.

Fenris
Feb 7th 2011, 09:40 PM
He says he has the power. They say he does not. What makes a penguin right and The President wrong?
A court just said that Obamacare was unconstitutional; Obama says it is. You agreeing with him on that too?

Let's pretend that he suspends elections in 2012. A court says he is obligated to allow them. You ok with that too?

If I want to go dig an oil well in the Gulf I don't think it's his business. A court agrees.

notuptome
Feb 7th 2011, 09:55 PM
I would rather they held him in irons but I'm not going to hold my breath.

The man is the president not the king. The court is to act as a check against unbridled power. Three branches provide for a division of power and a check on the power of each branch against the others.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

RabbiKnife
Feb 7th 2011, 09:58 PM
Oh, and that entire "you can't keep the lights on unless Congress and the President agree to send you money" stuff.

Why don't you go take care of that and let us know how it turns out?

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 02:10 AM
A court just said that Obamacare was unconstitutional; Obama says it is. You agreeing with him on that too?

Let's pretend that he suspends elections in 2012. A court says he is obligated to allow them. You ok with that too?

If I want to go dig an oil well in the Gulf I don't think it's his business. A court agrees.

Fenris, I am in favor of two branches outweighing one. If the congress passes a law and the president signs it, it is foolish that the court can trump the other two. The judiciary was created to be the weakest branch. When it can strike down the actions of the other two branches combined, it is not the weakest but the most powerful.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 01:01 PM
Fenris, I am in favor of two branches outweighing one. If the congress passes a law and the president signs it, it is foolish that the court can trump the other two. The judiciary was created to be the weakest branch. When it can strike down the actions of the other two branches combined, it is not the weakest but the most powerful.

You didn't answer my question.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 02:11 PM
You didn't answer my question.

I did answer your question. If two branches choose to do something, it is not a check and balance when the "weakest" branch has absolute dictatorship over the stronger of the branches. If Obama and Congress wanted to suspend the 2012 Election, there is nothing the court could do to prevent that from happening.

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 02:16 PM
I did answer your question. If two branches choose to do something, it is not a check and balance when the "weakest" branch has absolute dictatorship over the stronger of the branches. If Obama and Congress wanted to suspend the 2012 Election, there is nothing the court could do to prevent that from happening.

Ever actually read the Constitution? This is not "rock, paper, scissors." There is no concept either in the Founders writings or in the Constitution of "OK, boys, we'll set this up so that any 2 branches of goverment can trump the other one." Just not there.

The idea is that there is a dynamic tension between the 3 branches, and that any one of the three can trump the other 2, all of whom are subject to the consent of the governed. WE are the ultimate check and balance.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 02:20 PM
Ever actually read the Constitution? This is not "rock, paper, scissors." There is no concept either in the Founders writings or in the Constitution of "OK, boys, we'll set this up so that any 2 branches of goverment can trump the other one." Just not there.

The idea is that there is a dynamic tension between the 3 branches, and that any one of the three can trump the other 2, all of whom are subject to the consent of the governed. WE are the ultimate check and balance.

Rabbi, the court has taken much more power than the founders intended to give it.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 02:22 PM
If Obama and Congress wanted to suspend the 2012 Election, there is nothing the court could do to prevent that from happening.
That isn't the way the system works. If Congress writes a new law and the president signs it, and said law conflicts with the Constitution, the law can be struck down by the courts. Otherwise there would be no limits on government power.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 02:58 PM
That isn't the way the system works. If Congress writes a new law and the president signs it, and said law conflicts with the Constitution, the law can be struck down by the courts. Otherwise there would be no limits on government power.

That is not the way the system was designed to work. The court created this authority in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution DOES NOT give the courts this authority. Abraham Lincoln demonstrated to the courts that they did not have the authority they thought they had.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 03:03 PM
That is not the way the system was designed to work.
OK, so what happens if congress writes a law that oversteps it's consitutional power, and the president signs it? You know, suspending elections, reinstituting slavery...use your imagination. What happens then?

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 03:08 PM
OK, so what happens if congress writes a law that oversteps it's consitutional power, and the president signs it? You know, suspending elections, reinstituting slavery...use your imagination. What happens then?

The people rise up and remove them. Fenris, If the people wanted to do it, slavery could be re-instituted in this nation and the Courts would be powerless to stop it. The people, not the court, are the absolute check and balance in our system.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 03:14 PM
The people rise up and remove them.
Why did I know you would say that.....

The courts get to rule on the constitutionality of a law. That seems to be it's role. And I'm comfortable with that. Certainly more comfortable than the idea of the mob rising up and doing God only knows what.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 03:21 PM
Why did I know you would say that.....

The courts get to rule on the constitutionality of a law. That seems to be it's role. And I'm comfortable with that. Certainly more comfortable than the idea of the mob rising up and doing God only knows what.

Fenris, what would you do if the courts all of a sudden said "elections are unconstitutional?" What if the court said "The executive branch is un-constitutional, we are going to take over the executive branch?" Our system was designed to "govern a moral people." Our founders readily admitted if the moral fabric of our nation broke down, our system of government would fail. As it stands now, the courts have absolute authority. That was NOT the intent of the founders, nor the way we say the early courts work. Jefferson paid them about as much attention as I pay the martian hiding on the back of the moon.

Fenris, are talking about that same "mob" that birthed this nation in rebellion?

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 03:27 PM
Fenris, what would you do if the courts all of a sudden said "elections are unconstitutional?"To be honest, I'm much more concerned with the big power grab from congress and the exective branch right now. They signed a law that orders me to purchase a product and I'm hoping the courts throw it out.



Fenris, are talking about that same "mob" that birthed this nation in rebellion?Once was enough. It didn't have to turn out the way it did and I'd rather not take any chances...

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 04:07 PM
To be honest, I'm much more concerned with the big power grab from congress and the exective branch right now. They signed a law that orders me to purchase a product and I'm hoping the courts throw it out.


Once was enough. It didn't have to turn out the way it did and I'd rather not take any chances...

We can vote out Congress and the President. We do not have the ability to vote out the Supreme court. There lies the problem.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 04:13 PM
Vote them out all you want, the crappy laws they wrote remain. If the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare you're still going to dislike them?

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 04:21 PM
Reynolds, since you are so hot on the Founders and what they intended the Court to mean, how about we listen a bit to Hamilton in Federalist Paper 78:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

The idea of judicial review was not foreign to their thinking; it was intended.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 04:28 PM
Judicial review vs the angry mob. Which would the Founders prefer as a way of restraining Congressional power?

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 04:34 PM
Judicial review vs the angry mob. Which would the Founders prefer as a way of restraining Congressional power?

They preferred the angry voter.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 04:44 PM
They preferred the angry voter.

You know this...how?

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 04:49 PM
You know this...how?

That is how our system was set up. The ultimate accountability rested with the people. The people ran the States and the delegation from the States ran the Federal Govt. Not the voter in the street rioting, but the voter making a difference with his vote.

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 04:54 PM
SO, Reynolds, you disagree with Hamilton?

Or do you just pick and choose your Founders to support your theories of governance, which is, understandably, power to the king and his minions that wield firearms.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 05:01 PM
That is how our system was set up. The ultimate accountability rested with the people.
The Founders trusted "the people" so little they wouldn't even allow direct voting for president; Hence, the electoral college. They weren't even allowed to vote for Senators- the state legislatures did that.

I think they set up the courts as the third branch of government specifically so that it could keep the other two branches in check, and would approve of the system as it is now.

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 05:06 PM
Marbury v Madison is actually a very narrow case, and the Supremes got it right.

From the Opinion in the case:

"The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present [p174] case, because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States. In the distribution of this power. it is declared that The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.

It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States. If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]

If the solicitude of the Convention respecting our peace with foreign powers induced a provision that the Supreme Court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them, yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases if no further restriction on the powers of Congress had been intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as Congress might make, is no restriction unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.

When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original. ,If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that, if it be the will of the Legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true; yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and therefore seems not to belong to [p176] appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in such a case as this to enable the Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure. That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. [p179]

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

"No person," says the Constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution [p180] contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 05:47 PM
SO, Reynolds, you disagree with Hamilton?

Or do you just pick and choose your Founders to support your theories of governance, which is, understandably, power to the king and his minions that wield firearms.

I, like Jefferson, disagree with a lot of what Hamilton said.

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 05:49 PM
I, like Jefferson, disagree with a lot of what Hamilton said.

You choose the monarchy. OK.

notuptome
Feb 8th 2011, 08:37 PM
The founders did not have all men voting. The only who could vote were property owners. Imagine how the elections would run today if the only people allowed to vote were those who paid taxes. Imagine how taxpayers would vote if instead of having their taxes stolen from their paychecks every week by their employers they had to actually write a check to the government.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 08:59 PM
The founders did not have all men voting. The only who could vote were property owners. Imagine how the elections would run today if the only people allowed to vote were those who paid taxes. Imagine how taxpayers would vote if instead of having their taxes stolen from their paychecks every week by their employers they had to actually write a check to the government.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

It would be a much better system than it is today.

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 09:06 PM
Roger that...........

tango
Feb 9th 2011, 11:44 PM
The founders did not have all men voting. The only who could vote were property owners. Imagine how the elections would run today if the only people allowed to vote were those who paid taxes. Imagine how taxpayers would vote if instead of having their taxes stolen from their paychecks every week by their employers they had to actually write a check to the government.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Whoa! The end times must be near... I'm agreeing with you AGAIN :o :o :o

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77