U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?
Source:
The Shooters Log
URL Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/jeb ... snonationalrighttogunownership
Published: Nov 15, 2015
Author: Dave Dolbee
Post Date: 2015-11-15 17:52:30 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 24975
Comments: 205
Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership? By Dave Dolbee published on November 10, 2015 in News Jeb Bush recently made an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert when the subject of whether there is a national right to gun ownership came up. Bush’s answer may be concerning to many, but let’s reserve judgment until we look at the entire story. However, whether his answer was his true opinion or a gaff, is concerning. During the interview, Colbert asked a written-in question regarding the Constitution and whether it implied a national right to gun ownership. Jeb Bush, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, veered a bit off course when his answer drifted to the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to legislate gun ownership. The question was a bit of a gotcha and certainly anti-Second Amendment in its nature. Jeb handled it well talking about how Florida was a pro-Second Amendment state under his leadership and to keep the guns out of hands of criminals or the mentally ill, they had background checks. He went on to say the common root of mass shootings was almost always proven to be mental illness. However, it was in the follow-up question that Jeb might have taken a left turn. Second Amendment Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t the way that is also be applied be national? Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily… There’s a Tenth Amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment that powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well. On the face, that is pretty damning to the argument of whether the Second Amendment is a right or privilege. Jeb’s campaign quickly got out in front of the issue with a clarification. The clarification reiterated that Jeb is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Jeb’s argument was that states should be able to use the Tenth Amendment to pass laws that expand gun rights—but that is double-edged sword. Governor Bush is a strong Second Amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida, he used the Tenth Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ rating from the NRA. A Double-Edged Sword… While I like the federal government not being able to limit my rights, I do not favor a state being able to limit my rights. One of my degrees is in political science and I have taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law. That being said, I am far from a Constitutional scholar. However, I believe I understand a bit of where Jeb was trying to get to. The states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government—this is the heart of the federal system. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. So, how can using the Tenth Amendment to give states’ rights allow those same states to regulate the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights grant you and me specific rights that shall not be infringed? Do states have the power to expand or limit freedom of speech or unlawful search or seizure? Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights. In hindsight, like I have already stated, I can see where he was trying to go with his argument. The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms. At that point, the common belief that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is moot. Perhaps the best way to expand our Second Amendment rights is through the states. It is not perfect, but there is less risk of an all out gun ban that way. You’ll have to decide for yourself what Jeb really meant. In the end, we all wish Jeb had said the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right and neither a federal nor a state government has the power to limit that right. Whether or not he could have backed that up in front of the Supreme Court, is the attitude most, if not all, of us would like him to have taken. I am sure most of you have already picked out your preferred candidate. I am not trying to sway your opinion toward or against any particular candidate or party. However, on the subject of the Second Amendment and gun rights, where does the state under the Tenth Amendment or the federal government’s authority end? Where should it end? Share your answers or opinions regarding Jeb’s answer of the Tenth Amendment in the comment section. Share This!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-164) not displayed.
.
.
.
#165. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#164)
Mr. chan seems to have crossed dressed with some of the more government loving crowd while showing his ass in publick.
Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.
You lack of argument on the merits is noteworthy but understandable.
There is only one.
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that; ---- 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. - See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/5/137.html#sthash.xshj4p5F.dpuf As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution. You've been outed.. Learn to live with your anti-constitutionalism..
Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve. --- nolu chan It's impossible for me to believe that an individual as anti-constitutional as nolu served with honor. I smell a harrowup.
"Quoted bullshit is still bullshit." A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."
Trump has said that all Concealed Carry Permit holders have a duty to carry.
Psalm 37 PRAY FOR PARIS
Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve. And apparently you never learned a thing the whole time. I know you were in the Navy. Did you ever have sea duty or a troop command (personnel management in the Navy) position? I'm guessing you were some sort of clerical type staff weenie. Nobody else could be that ignorant to reality. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
You lack of argument on the merits is noteworthy but understandable. The fact that all you have is arguments that were cherry picked and posed by others is also understandable. You have have make a decision on your own and have no actual experience. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
He never expresses an opinion of his own,only opinions of others that allow him to argue points he doesn't even understand. Had to be some sort of staff weenie/clerk that is a frustrated lawyer. Maybe a clerk for a Navy lawyer. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
It's impossible for me to believe that an individual as anti-constitutional as nolu served with honor. I believe him. There are all sorts of jobs/positions in all branches of the military that are clerical in nature that never involve troop command or the requirement to make decisions on your own. That dofus Sy on the tv show about people making duck calls spent 20+ years in the army and never left the motor pool. As a NCO in the motor pool he had SOME command contact with troops,but damn little. At MOST a small platoon of people too scared to cause trouble because they didn't want to get sent to the infantry. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
"Quoted bullshit is still bullshit." A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion." ROFLMAO! Thanks for proving my point. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
"ROFLMAO!" --sneakypete A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."
Thank you for your service. You realize that by revealing your service you've given the lowlifes an opportunity to denigrate it. It's their nature. A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."
Thank you for your service. You realize that by revealing your service you've given the lowlifes an opportunity to denigrate it. It's their nature. --- Roscoe I still smell a harrowup. Nolu 'revealed' his navy service long ago, -- but now claims 20 years active. -- Next, like h'rup, he'll be claiming an equivalent rank to a kelvinator. Maybe, like Pete says, he was a clerk to a navy shyster. --- BFD. --- In at case, he is NOW an anti-constitutional apologist.
You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution. You've been outed.. Learn to live with your anti-constitutionalism.. tpaine, the Law God™. Empowered to deem constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Empowered to limit the effect of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the parties involved. Empowered to strike down U.S. Supreme Court opinions by a declaration of his superior knowledge. tpaine, Ct. Imag., 1 tpaine 401, August Term (1791). Meanwhile, back in the real world.... A law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. The ultimate arbiter of whether a law is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not the Law God. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Luther Martin and the Supremacy Clause 3 Farrand 220 [Luther Martin who introduced the Supremacy Clause] 2 Farrand 28-29: [Madison] Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes,Constitutional Law, 6 Ed., Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 68. Ibid at 156: John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law, 4 Ed., West Publishing Co., 1991, p. 2: Yet the Court found that it could not grant the remedy in an original action because it was not within the jurisdiction fixed for the Court by Article III. The opinion interpreted a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as placing this action within its jurisdiction but found that this law conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall concluded by holding that the Supreme Court had the power to declare such a law to be invalid as a violation of the Constitution. Ibid at 210 That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations, is clear.... The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments.... It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the states, or a cession or any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.... Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 3 ed., Vol. I, West Publishing Co., p. 647: Ibid at 647: Ibid at 210 Thomas H. Odom, Federal Constitutional Law. Vol. 3, Introduction to the Federal Legislative Power, Lexis-Nexis, 2009, pp. 100-01: In Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 712-13 (1985), the Court summarized its jurisprudence regarding federal preemption of state law. Even where Congress has not completely displaced state regulation in a specific area, state law is nullified to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict arises when "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers,, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. at 67, 61. We have held repeatedly that state laws can be pre-empted by federal regulations as well as by federal statutes. See, e.g., Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984); United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 381-383 (1961). Also, for the purposes of the Supremacy Clause, the constitutionality of local ordinances is analyzed in the same way as that of statewide laws. See, e.g., City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973). Lee J. Strang, Federal Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, Federalism Limitations on State and Federal Power: The Contracts Clause, Supremacy Clause, "Dormant" Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, Lexis-Nexis, 2011, p, 79 Louis Fisher and Katy J. Harriger, American Constitutional Law, 10th Ed., Vol .1, Constitutional Structures, Separater Powers and Federalism, Carolina Adacemic Press, 2013, p. 315: National powers are further reinforced by the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Section 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Early in its history, the Supreme Court decided that in cases of conflict between state law and a treaty, the latter prevails. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 198 (1796). In 2000, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause to a Massachusetts law that barred state entities from buying goods or services from companies doing business with Burma (Myanmar). Congress later imposed sanctions on the country, but delegated to the President substantial discretion to lift the sanctions if the regime made progress in human rights and democracy. A nonprofit corporation, representing several companies affected by the state law, sued on the basis that Massachusetts infringed on the federal foreign affairs power, violated the Foreign Commerce Clause, and was preempted by the federal statute. The Supreme Court held that the state law was invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000). Otis H. Stephens, Jr. and John M. Sheb II, American Constitutional Law, 5th Ed., Vol 1, Sources of Power and Restraint, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012, p. 320: The classic statement of the federal preemption doctrine is found in Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), in which the Court struck down a state law criminalizing sedition against the national government. As the Court made clear in Nelson, a state law may be struck down, even where there is no explicit conflict with federal law, if the Court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field. Thus, in Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973), the Supreme Court held that a local aircraft noise-abatement ordinance was preempted by the federal Noise Control Act of 1972, even though the latter contained no specific preemptive language and there was no evidence that the ordinance placed a heavy burden on interstate commerce. Writing for the Court, Justice William O. Douglas emphasized the potential safety hazard that could result if a "significant number of municipalities" adopted similar ordinances. Similarly, in Nantahala Power and Light Company v. Thornburg (1986), the Court invoked the preemption doctrine to prohibit states from deviating from federal standards in setting intrastate rates for the sale of electrical power. Likewise, in California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1990), the Supreme Court held that state regulations imposing minimum flow rates on rivers used to generate hydroelectric power were preempted by the Federal Power Act. Recent decisions indicate that the preemption doctrine continues to stand as a major limitation on state regulatory authority. During the 2000 term, for example, the Supreme Court handed down no fewer than three decisions reinforcing the preemption doctrine (see Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee [2001], Egelhoff v. Egelhoff [2001], and Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly [2001]). In the most prominent of these cases, the Rehnquist Court was unwilling to accommodate the states in the area of cigarette advertising; in the Lorillard case, the Court held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) preempted Massachusetts regulations governing the sale and advertisement of tobacco products. The Constitution designates the judiciary to decide whether the laws were made in pursuance thereof, and the judiciary declares null and void the laws it finds unconstitutional. When the Constitution is amended to delegate the authority to tpaine, you will be expounding something other than bullshit. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 131: [Samuel Adams] [I]f any law made by the federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the constitution of this state, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 196: [Oliver Elsworth] If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 445: [James Wilson] I say, under this Constitution, the legislature may be restrained, and kept within its prescribed bounds, by the interposition of the judicial department. - - - - - 4 Elliott 553: [John Marshall] Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction. They would declare it void. William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 1825, Chapter 20, of the Judicial Power, p. 188: Of the Judicial Power. [...] Its construction of the acts of the legislature is received as binding and conclusive, although it does not prevent the legislature from repairing its own defects, or clearing up its own ambiguities by subsequent laws, operating on subsequent cases. A high function also appertains to the judiciary in the exclusive right to expound the constitution, and thereby to test the validity of all the acts of the legislature. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703: Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000): United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809): This was the original case on State Nulification. No Supreme Court decision has ever upheld State Nullification. It is currently only upheld by the tpaine Court of the imagination. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958): [...] Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” The duty to abstain from resistance to “the supreme Law of the Land,” U.S. Const., Art. VI § 2, as declared by the organ of our Government for ascertaining it, does not require immediate approval of it nor does it deny the right of dissent. Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred. Our kind of society cannot endure if the controlling authority of the Law as derived from the Constitution is not to be the tribunal specially charged with the duty of ascertaining and declaring what is “the supreme Law of the Land.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 211 (1962) the Court stated:
Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. That "responsibility" is subject to Congressional control. Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. " And that "ultimate interpreter" power is also subject to nullification and noncompliance, once the public has had enough of the Court's misconduct. Justice Frankfurter cautioned in his dissent that, "It may well impair the Court's position as the ultimate organ of "the supreme Law of the Land" in that vast range of legal problems, often strongly entangled in popular feeling, on which this Court must pronounce. The Court's authority - possessed of neither the purse nor the sword - ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction." A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."
I may be wrong,but I think he has always claimed he served 20 years on active duty in the Navy. I see no reason to disbelieve him. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution. You've been outed.. Learn to live with your anti-constitutionalism.. Good, I've finally forced you to a bit of rationality… --- We agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." There you go again, getting weird about SCOTUS. -- They are NOT the ultimate arbiters of our constitutional laws. --- They issue opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people..
Nolu 'revealed' his navy service long ago, -- but now claims 20 years active. -- Next, like h'rup, he'll be claiming an equivalent rank to a kelvinator. Maybe, like Pete says, he was a clerk to a navy shyster. --- BFD. Or as pete actually said at #183, " I may be wrong,but I think he has always claimed he served 20 years on active duty in the Navy. I see no reason to disbelieve him." Yes it is not a reccently revealed secret. It's just that tpaine is full of shit as usual, the senile old bastard. This is yet one more example of his typical research or fact finding, i.e., just make some shit up. No doubt, that is what he smells. Just a few examples, from three different sites. Free Republic 2004 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1302649/posts?page=318#318 318 posted on 12/29/2004, 8:27:21 AM by nolu chan Liberty Post 2005 http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=92079&Disp=57#C57 nolu chan posted on 2005-04-17 14:27:49 ET Liberty's Flame 2011 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24188&Disp=117 And bitch, I don't have a Fleet Reserve Certificate, I earned a HONORABLE RE-R1 Discharge, (form DD256N (Rev.5-50)); I did ALL of my time active except for my 3 months delayed entry before going to boot WOG. Wow, I am impressed. I only did twenty years active duty, you miserable stolen valor pissant. nolu chan, USN (Ret.) I can't think of anything that could possibly be more impressive than your talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, about your alleged DD-214. nolu chan posted on 2011-09-26 0:04:32 ET I don't walk around talking about it all the time.
You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution. See #181. The Constitution, Framers, Law books, and U.S. Supreme Court opinions. tpaine, the Law God™. Empowered to deem constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Empowered to limit the effect of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the parties involved. Empowered to strike down U.S. Supreme Court opinions by a declaration of his superior knowledge. tpaine, Ct. Imag., 1 tpaine 401, August Term (1791). Justices write, "It is so ordered." The Law God™ writes, "So let it be written, so let it be done." Creeping Death, a song by Metallica "So let it be written, so let it be done. I'm sent by the chosen one....."
And that "ultimate interpreter" power is also subject to nullification and noncompliance, once the public has had enough of the Court's misconduct. APPELLATE jurisdiction of the Court may be limited by Congress. The ORIGINAL jurisdiction may not be limited. If there is a usurping Executive who unlawfully ignores the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has no enforcement authority. Louis Fisher served as Senior Sepcialist in Seperation of Powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. Louis Fisher and Katy J. Harriger, American Constitutional Law, 10th Ed., Vol .1, Constitutional Structures, Separater Powers and Federalism, Carolina Adacemic Press, 2013, p. 456-57: During the past several decades, Congress has been under strong pressure to withdraw the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear appeals in cases of abortion, school busing, school prayer, and other issues on the conservatives' "social agenda." This strategy is based on language in Article III of the Constitution: "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make." The Exceptions Clause, it is argued, gives Congress plenary power to determine the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Although this approach appears to be grounded on constitutional language, the Exceptions Clause must be read in concert with other provisions in the Constitution. An aggressive use of the Exceptions Clause by Congress would make an exception the rule and deny citizens access to the Supreme Court to vindicate constitutional rights. Stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear certain issues would vest ultimate judicial authority in the lower federal and state courts, producing contradictory and conflicting legal doctrines. A more radical proposal would prevent even the lower federal courts from ruling on specific social issues. Under Article III, the judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court "and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Because Congress creates the lower courts, it may by statute confer, define, and withdraw jurisdiction. Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441, 449 (1850). Although Congress has withdrawn jurisdiction to adjudicate certain issues, the exercise of that power "is subject to compliance with at least the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. That is to say, while Congress has the undoubted power to give, withhold, and restrict the jurisdiction of courts other than the Supreme Court, it must not so exercise that power as to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or to take private property without just compensation." Battaglia v. General Motors Corp., 169 F.2d 254, 257 (2d Cir. 1948), cert, denied, 335 U.S. 887 (1948). To deny the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims arising under the Constitution would upset the system of checks and balances, alter the balance of power between the national government and the states, and strengthen the force of majority rule over individual rights (see reading on ABA report). Withdrawing appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and withdrawing jurisdiction from the lower federal courts would also undercut the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, which states that the Constitution and federal laws "made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." In 1982, the chief justices of the highest state courts issued a unanimous resolution expressing "serious concerns" about bills introduced in Congress to give the states sole authority to decide certain social issues. Among other objections, the chief justices pointed out that the result of such legislation would be contrary to what conservatives professed to be their goal. Instead of overturning Supreme Court decisions, they would be "cast in stone" when state judges continued to honor their oaths to obey the federal Constitution and to give full force (pursuant to the Supremacy Clause) to Supreme Court precedents. The practical effect, therefore, would be to place a body of legal doctrine outside the reach of federal courts or state courts either to alter or overrule. 128 Cong. Rec. 689-90 (1982). Members of Congress have also attempted to use their power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment as a lever to alter the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," the provisions of that Amendment. In 1981, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on a bill that looked to Section 5 as the vehicle for overturning the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision. The hearings covered the scope of Section 5, the issue of whether Congress would be exercising judgments over "facts" or "law," and a possible shift of balance of power between the national government and the states (see reading).
Good, I've finally forced you to a bit of rationality… --- We agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." There you go again, getting weird about SCOTUS. -- They are NOT the ultimate arbiters of our constitutional laws. --- They issue opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people.. Wow, --- you've really went off the deep end, - if you think that's a valid response. Seriously, get help..
APPELLATE jurisdiction of the Court is what? 99% of the Court's decisions? 99.9% of the Court's decisions? 99.99% of the Court's decisions? A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."
It's their nature. You're welcome. My navy service is hardly a secret.
I smell a harrowup. What you smell is coming from the multi-purpose buttplug/pacifier you have in your mouth. I do not know why you think I could possibly give a shit about your opinion. It is not as if you have ever demonstrated the ability to form a rational thought. But I believe everything in your 1950's military saga, and that you are 78 or 79 years of age, which explains your senility and general confusion. [tpaine #8 posted on 11/6/2006, 7:49:05 AM] One of my college professors was a soldier in the West German army in 1956. He said they were told they were going to Hungary to fight with the Hungarian revolutionaries against the Red Army; in other words the beginning of WW3. They sat in transport planes on the runway for 3 days until they were ordered to stand down. My outfit [503rd Regt, 11th Airborne Div.] was also on full alert out on the runway at Furstenfeldbruck, near Munich, for a couple of days in early Nov. '56. -- We were told that there was a possibile need to secure the airport at Budapest in order to evacuate Americans. -- Lots of sabre rattling going on at that point, in hindsight.. But we troops were all pumped up, ready to go. 8 posted on 11/6/2006, 7:49:05 AM by tpaine [tpaine #321 posted on 2015-09-06 16:44:31 ET] Believe me, I was there in '56, and it was the overwhelming strength of Russian armored forces that stopped us from a Hungarian rescue. Thanks to that evil leader in DC, Ike, our evil empire was stopped from starting WW III... tpaine posted on 2015-09-06 16:44:31 ET Yes, the fear was of Russian armor, not Russian nuclear bombs. [Vicomte13 #13, posted on 2015-09-14 20:50:30 ET] Why, tpaine is about nearly 80 years old. - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=42938&Disp=1#C1 I'm a vet, and I know I'll have a good day, -- mainly because I'm starting to realise how lucky I was, -- that I never had a really bad day in the 3 years I served. -- I volunteered at 18, and served in the army from Jan of 55 to 58, the last two years in Munich, - where the biggest problem many of us had was staying sober... So hopefully, here's to a happy Vets Day to all you guys that didn't have it so good. tpaine posted on 2015-11-11 0:01:50 ET ~1937 born Jan 1955 - 18 years old. Jan 2015 - 78 years old. You keep telling that story about your father or grandfather much longer and you will be in your eighties. Or you will simply come out of the closet as yukon.
See #181. The Constitution, Framers, Law books, and U.S. Supreme Court opinions. tpaine, the Law God™. Empowered to deem constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Empowered to limit the effect of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the parties involved. Empowered to strike down U.S. Supreme Court opinions by a declaration of his superior knowledge. The U.S. Supreme court issues "opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people.." tpaine, Law God™, Ct. Imag., 1 tpaine 401, August Term (1791). So let it be written, so let it be done.
The 1% includes cases in which the State is a party, which is significant if the issue is seperation of state and federal powers. And, as Fisher and Harriger point out, the results of said withdrawal of jurisdiction may create a conflict with another provision of the Constitution. Only if you use a really vivid imagination. The subject matter legal experts wrote, "Although this approach appears to be grounded on constitutional language, the Exceptions Clause must be read in concert with other provisions in the Constitution." The authors gave an example of competing interests, quoted from a Circuit Court opinion (cert. denied). Louis Fisher served as Senior Specialist in Seperation of Powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. The co-authors are Louis Fisher and Katy J. Harriger.
BZZZZZT! Wrong. It includes cases where the dispute is BETWEEN states. Were you being sloppy or slippery with your assertion? By the way, I'm still waiting for your Army to show up. While we wait: The federal Environmental Protection Agency required Anchorage, Alaska, to reduce incoming organic waste sewage inflow by at least 30 per cent. Anchorage responded by arranging for two local fisheries to dump fish viscera into the river so the city could remove them. No U.S. Army. The Montana Legislature unanimously voted against the driver’s license requirements of the 2005 REAL ID Act. Oklahoma and Washington have also passed state laws refusing to comply. Several other states have not passed formal declaratiions of refusal, but they are not in compliance either. How many of those states have been invaded by the U.S. Army as the years passed by? A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."
It's nice to be believed..
There you go again, getting weird about SCOTUS. -- They are NOT the ultimate arbiters of our constitutional laws. --- They issue opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people.. Wow, --- you've really went off the deep end, - if you think that's a valid response. Seriously, get help.. Now you've sent another reply that simply repeats our previous posts? Good God man, get a grip...
You mean that the fascist US government run by muslims and communists own it?
CCN: The 1% includes cases in which the
It certainly is not an example of my vivid imagination. It is a quote sourced to a lawbook by Louis Fisher and Katy J. Harriger. Louis Fisher served as Senior Specialist in Seperation of Powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. You are free to reject what the legal experts say in favor of your claimed superior knowledge. Of course, Fisher and Harriger explained why it has a very significant effect on the consideration of withdrawing all appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, which goes a long way toward explaining why that moronic brainfart has never been effected. If you wait for an administration that does more than very selectively enforce the laws that it chooses to enforce, you may get your wish. No nullification of Federal law either. The only thing you have documented is that you have either failed utterly to read the REAL ID Act of 2005, or you have misunderstood its requirements, or that its air transportation enforcement is scheduled to begin not earlier than 2016. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr418rfs/pdf/BILLS-109hr418rfs.pdf If a state chooses to continue to issue non-compliant driver's licenses, the TSA will not accept them for official identification purposes. The citizens of those states, with those driver's licenses, will need a passport to board a plane. (1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section. http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs Implementation was delayed to 2014. "For the first two years of enforcement, REAL ID primarily affects persons seeking to access Federal facilities where identification is required to be presented." Beginning no sooner than 2016: A driver’s license or identification card from a noncompliant state may only be used in conjunction with a second form of ID for boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft If a state chooses not to comply, they are not nullifying the Act. The consequence is that the licenses it issues will not be recognized by the federal authorities to board a federally regulated commercial aircraft. An ID compliant with the federal law will be required for that.
See #181. The Constitution, Framers, Law books, and U.S. Supreme Court opinions. tpaine, the Law God™. Empowered to deem constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Empowered to limit the effect of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the parties involved. Empowered to strike down U.S. Supreme Court opinions by a declaration of his superior knowledge. The U.S. Supreme court issues "opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people.." Ex parte Law God™, Ct. Imag., 1 tpaine 401, August Term (1791). So let it be written, so let it be done.
I never claimed superior knowledge, you lying jackass. You may now join tpaine. You are no challenge. A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."
There, fixed it for ya. You are free to characterize what the legal experts wrote as "an example of really vivid imagination,", even if you do not claim superior knowledge. Just because you claim it is so. Law God Jr.™.
Roscoe Even poor roscoe has finally figured out that you're a phony.. Keep repeating yourself.. It's amusing.
zzzzzzz.
It's even more amusing to see you post crap like that... - Keep up the good work!
#166. To: sneakypete (#164)
Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?
#167. To: sneakypete (#164)
Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.
#168. To: buckeroo (#163)
What Supremacy Clause?
#169. To: nolu chan (#162)
Below is an opinion that I agree with, --- do you?
#170. To: nolu chan, harrowup, Y'ALL, sneakypete (#166)
sneakypete (#164) --- Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?
#171. To: sneakypete (#164)
Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.
#172. To: All (#0)
#173. To: nolu chan (#166)
(Edited)
Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?
#174. To: nolu chan (#167)
Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.
#175. To: tpaine (#169)
As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
#176. To: tpaine (#170)
Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve. --- nolu chan
#177. To: Roscoe (#171)
Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.
#178. To: sneakypete (#177)
ROFLMAO!
#179. To: nolu chan (#166)
I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.
#180. To: Roscoe, nolu chan, Y'ALL, sneakypete (#179)
nolu chan (#166) --- I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.
#181. To: tpaine (#169)
As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
U.S. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 2 [83] By the third article, the judicial power of the United States is vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. These courts, and these only, will have a right to decide upon the laws of the United States, and all questions arising upon their construction, and in a judicial manner to carry those laws into execution; to which the courts, both superior and inferior, of the respective States, and their judges and other magistrates, are rendered incompetent. To the courts of the general government are also confined all cases in law or equity, arising under the proposed constitution, and treaties made under the authority of the United States; all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; all controversies to which the United States are a party; all controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects. Whether therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, or any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by the constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress to determine; by whose determinations every State must be bound.
(Mr. Luther Martin moved the following resolution “that the Legislative acts of the U. S. made by virtue & in pursuance of the articles of Union, and all treaties made & ratified under the authority of the U. S. shall be the supreme law of the respective States, as far as those acts or treaties shall relate to the said States, or their Citizens and inhabitants & that the Judiciaries of the several States shall be bound thereby in their decisions, any thing in the respective laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding” which was agreed to nem: con:.)
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court held § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Act was read by Justice Marshall, perhaps erroneously, to enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the limits defined in Art. III of the Constitution. Since the constitution prescribes the powers delegated by the people to the national govenrment, a congressional act contrary to the Constitution is invalid. The Constitution is supreme over ordinary federal or state law under the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI.
Art. VI provides that all treaties which are made "under the authority of the United States" are the supreme law of the land. They prevail, as do Executive Agreements, over inconsistent state law. Treaties and Executive Agreements are subject to constitutional limitations. Reid v. Covert (1957). Treaties and Acts of Congress are on a par, i.e., the last in time controls. The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889).
On February 24, 1803, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. In the opinion the court held that Marbury had a right to his judicial commission. In so doing the Court found that the executive was subject to certain legal and constitutional restraints that could be enforced by the judiciary.
Quoting Mr. Justice Field of the Supreme Court in De Geofroy v. Riggs.: This clause [The Supremacy Clause] at one time had been interpreted by legal authorities to suggest that treaties were equal to the Constitution. As a consequence the theory developed that said that treaties were not subject to any constitutional limitations.....
If there were any remaining doubt on the issue whether there is any outer limit to the treaty-making power, that question was closed resoundingly in Reid v. Covert, where a plurality of the Supreme Court, in holding American civilian dependents of overseas military personnel entitled to civilian trial, stated that neither a treaty nor an executive agreement "can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of government, which is free fom the restraints of the Constitution."
Footnote 18
see also The Cherokee tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620-21 (1871)(dictum) ("a treaty cannot change the constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument").
Quoting from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177: "[A]ll 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."
A NOTE REGARDING PREEMPTION DOCTRINE
It is a familiar and well-established principle that the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, invalidates state laws that "interfere with, or are contrary to," federal law. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 211 (1824) (Marshall, C.J.). Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law may supersede state law in several different ways. First, when acting within constitutional limits, Congress is empowered to pre-empt state law by so stating in express terms. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977). In the absence of express pre-emptive language, Congress' intent to pre-empt all state law in a particular area may be inferred where the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the inference that Congress "left no room" for supplementary state regulation. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218,230 (1947). Pre-emption of a whole field also will be inferred where the field is one in which "the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Id.; see Uines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).
The Supremacy Clause creates a hierarchy of law. Whenever two legal norms in the hierarchy come into conflict — when they attempt to regulate the same person or activity in incompatible manners — the legal norm higher on the hierarchy "preempts" the other norm. See Gade v. National Sold Waste Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88,108 (1992) ("But under the Supremacy Clause, from which our pre-emption doctrine is derived, any state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.") (internal quotations omitted). Preemption is different from the Contracts Clause and dormant Commerce Clause contexts because, for federal law to preempt — void — state law, Congress must affirmatively act.
The Supremacy Clause
The Preemption Doctrine
2 Farrand 93: [James Madison]
CHAPTER XX.
§ 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void.
But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.
If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all, and the people of Pennsylvania, not less than the citizens of every other State, must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of the union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves.
1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court’s considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. P. 4.
Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
#182. To: nolu chan (#181)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 211 (1962) the Court stated:
#183. To: tpaine (#180)
(Edited)
Nolu 'revealed' his navy service long ago, -- but now claims 20 years active. --
#184. To: nolu chan (#181)
tpaine, the Law God™. Empowered to deem constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Empowered to limit the effect of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the parties involved. Empowered to strike down U.S. Supreme Court opinions by a declaration of his superior knowledge. tpaine, Ct. Imag., 1 tpaine 401, August Term (1791). --- Meanwhile, back in the real world.... A law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.
The ultimate arbiter of whether a law is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not the Law God.
#185. To: tpaine, Roscoe, sneakypete (#180)
I still smell a harrowup.
nolu chan, USN, (ret).
nolu chan, USN, (Ret).
#97. To: Mad Dog (#87)
Mad Dog #87
#186. To: tpaine (#184)
As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
#187. To: Roscoe (#182)
Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "
D. WITHDRAWING JURISDICTION
#188. To: nolu chan (#186)
Meanwhile, back in the real world.... A law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.
The ultimate arbiter of whether a law is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not the Law God.
Justices write, "It is so ordered." The Law God™ writes, "So let it be written, so let it be done." ---- Creeping Death, a song by Metallica "So let it be written, so let it be done. I'm sent by the chosen one....."
#189. To: nolu chan (#187)
APPELLATE jurisdiction of the Court may be limited by Congress. The ORIGINAL jurisdiction may not be limited.
Withdrawing appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and withdrawing jurisdiction from the lower federal courts would also undercut the Supremacy Clause in Article VI
Katy thinks that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution is unconstitutional? The Constitution is unconstitutional? Really? Is she related to tpaine?
#190. To: Roscoe (#179)
Thank you for your service. You realize that by revealing your service you've given the lowlifes an opportunity to denigrate it.
#191. To: tpaine (#180)
It's impossible for me to believe that an individual as anti constitutional as nolu served with honor.
To: ozzymandus
#321. To: Vicomte13 (#320)
Russian nukes kept the West from rescuing Hungary in 1956 ---
As far as lacking the balls to respond, I am not sitting quivering in fear at your scintillating logic. You're a veteran, an old one: on the front line in Europe in 1956, which was 7 years before I was born. I have a certain respect for age, and I don't want to get too nasty with old men because I don't think it's nice.
#1. To: Don, Y'ALL (#0)
Happy Vets Day to all veterans
#192. To: tpaine (#188)
[tpaine, the Law God™] There you go again, getting weird about SCOTUS. -- They are NOT the ultimate arbiters of our constitutional laws. --- They issue opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people..
#193. To: Roscoe (#189)
APPELLATE jurisdiction of the Court is what? 99% of the Court's decisions?
Katy thinks that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution is unconstitutional? The Constitution is unconstitutional? Really?
Although Congress has withdrawn jurisdiction to adjudicate certain issues, the exercise of that power "is subject to compliance with at least the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. That is to say, while Congress has the undoubted power to give, withhold, and restrict the jurisdiction of courts other than the Supreme Court, it must not so exercise that power as to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or to take private property without just compensation." Battaglia v. General Motors Corp., 169 F.2d 254, 257 (2d Cir. 1948), cert, denied, 335 U.S. 887 (1948).
#194. To: nolu chan (#193)
The 1% includes cases in which the State is a party,
Only if you use a really vivid imagination.
Here's an example of really vivid imagination: The subject matter legal experts wrote, "Although this approach appears to be grounded on constitutional language, the Exceptions Clause must be read in concert with other provisions in the Constitution."
Other provisions. How imaginatively ambiguous.Congress has the undoubted power to give, withhold, and restrict the jurisdiction of courts other than the Supreme Court
Your quote has NOTHING to do with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The case had NOTHING to do with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It doesn't even rise to the level of obiter dictum in that the Circuit Court's imaginative digression explicitly states that it is hypothesizing about courts other than the Supreme Court, much less the APPELLATE jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
#195. To: nolu chan (#191)
I do not know why you think I could possibly give a shit about your opinion. It is not as if you have ever demonstrated the ability to form a rational thought. But I believe everything in your 1950's military saga, and that you are 78 or 79 years of age,
You keep telling that story about your father or grandfather much longer and you will be in your eighties. Or you will simply come out of the closet as yukon.
You're the one around here that been classed as posting like Yukon, -- not me..--- But whatever..
#196. To: nolu chan (#192)
The ultimate arbiter of whether a law is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not the Law God.
Justices write, "It is so ordered." The Law God™ writes, "So let it be written, so let it be done." ---- Creeping Death, a song by Metallica "So let it be written, so let it be done. I'm sent by the chosen one....."
#197. To: nolu chan (#168)
There is only one.
#198. To: Roscoe (#194)
It includes cases where the dispute is BETWEEN states.
State United States is a party.
#199. To: Roscoe (#194)
Here's an example of really vivid imagination:
The subject matter legal experts wrote, "Although this approach appears to be grounded on constitutional language, the Exceptions Clause must be read in concert with other provisions in the Constitution."
Other provisions. How imaginatively ambiguous.
Congress has the undoubted power to give, withhold, and restrict the jurisdiction of courts other than the Supreme Court
Your quote has NOTHING to do with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The case had NOTHING to do with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It doesn't even rise to the level of obiter dictum in that the Circuit Court's imaginative digression explicitly states that it is hypothesizing about courts other than the Supreme Court, much less the APPELLATE jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your Army to show up. While we wait:
The federal Environmental Protection Agency required Anchorage, Alaska, to reduce incoming organic waste sewage inflow by at least 30 per cent. Anchorage responded by arranging for two local fisheries to dump fish viscera into the river so the city could remove them. No U.S. Army.
The Montana Legislature unanimously voted against the driver’s license requirements of the 2005 REAL ID Act. Oklahoma and Washington have also passed state laws refusing to comply. Several other states have not passed formal declaratiions of refusal, but they are not in compliance either. How many of those states have been invaded by the U.S. Army as the years passed by?
SEC. 202. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION.
(a) MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL USE.—
Boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft
#200. To: tpaine (#196)
tpaine, the Law God™] There you go again, getting weird about SCOTUS. -- They are NOT the ultimate arbiters of our constitutional laws. --- They issue opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people..
#201. To: nolu chan (#199)
You are free to reject what the legal experts say in favor of your claimed superior knowledge.
#202. To: Roscoe (#201)
You are free to reject what the legal experts say in favor of your
claimed superior knowledge.
#203. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#200)
You are no challenge.
#204. To: tpaine (#203)
#205. To: nolu chan (#204)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]