tlmorg02
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 1,078
- Location
- Louisville, Ky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
They have and it doesn't make it right. One does not excuse the other.
What if they determine that speech regarding smaller government is treasonous?
Is that ok with you? What about speech against proposed programs, they can create an entire new definition for treason and it be legal.
How is saying something treasonous considered an infringement of another persons rights?
Correct, nothing in the constitution says anything about granting the supreme court the power of judicial review. But that is the way it has been since near the very beginning; its a "well established precedent." So you can disagree all you want but I don't see it changing ANYTIME in the near future nor would I want it to.There is nothing in The Constitution that says judges are the final deciders on what The Constitution actually means.
why would they bother to justify this to you or anyone else?I mean he is taking something away, which is not based on any past legal precedent. What authority does he or congress have in doing so?
If they do have the authority and the reasons for doing so, it should be very simple.
Correct, nothing in the constitution says anything about granting the supreme court the power of judicial review. But that is the way it has been since near the very beginning; its a "well established precedent." So you can disagree all you want but I don't see it changing ANYTIME in the near future nor would I want it to.
why would they bother to justify this to you or anyone else?
They do have the authority which is why they were able to enforce the act.
and those challenges must be brought up through the proper channels. Perhaps in the future they will be and the courts will rule for or against.I didn't say anything would change, I am challenging their unfounded reasoning for passing laws that have no Constitutional support.
okI don't believe our government will act more logically in the future, I believe it will act less reasonably and logically.
but as the people we are given limited avenues to address our griviences: voting, influencing politicans, the appeals court, and rebellion.Because I am the people.
I am supposed to be the will at which they are allowed to govern.
The whole founding of our country.
they do in a sense: "The people who count the votes decide everything" ~StalinYou act as if they have a grand fiat beyond the realm of logic and reason.
Correct.The authority only exists because you legitimize it.
It vanishes most don't.
It'll take a hell of a lot to make me sorry for voting for Obama because the alternative was McCain and Palin
I'm happy with Obama. People who say otherwise are probably confused or paranoid. Calm down people ... calm down.
Actually that was congress.
Last time I checked, not vetoing a law wasn't unconstitutional.
I was scared of both the people (the ones my state allowed me to vote for)running for office,which is why I didn't vote for president in the last election.
There were OTHER alternatives--
the Libertarian Party (Bob Barr--yes, he had some discrepencies, but he was better than McCain and much better than Obama) and the Constitution Party.
based on what precedent? Based on what law? I'm not saying your wrong but I want evidence before I take your word on it.Not vetoing an unconstitutional law would at least be a dereliction of duty.
Even I'm guilty of playing arm-chair lawyer but you are wallowing in nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture right now.But what's worse, he SIGNED it. That makes it treason.
and those challenges must be brought up through the proper channels. Perhaps in the future they will be and the courts will rule for or against.
Personally I hope it is found unconstitutional.
but as the people we are given limited avenues to address our griviences: voting, influencing politicans, the appeals court, and rebellion.
they do in a sense: "The people who count the votes decide everything" ~Stalin
This is analgous to the supreme court and the interpretation of the constitution.
That's for good reason. One unelected person shouldn't be able to change policy and law that governs millions without some type of consensus or authority given through election.You and I know that many of those channels are not a real possibility of changing anything.
You have influence, but what have you done to use it?I don't have any of kind of money required to influence.
That is disingenious. They are elected by officials we elect. In fact the process is 100% transparent. Its far from the dishonest assertion you make that SCOTUS judges simply "take power".I dislike the legitimization of their power solely because they took it.
There's a difference between illegal and unprecedented.many of their powers are really not legal but most individuals have no idea what the government is supposed to do.
He's not anymore corrupt then all the previous presidents and politicians before him. The mantra of "change" is and always has been for suckers. Its brilliant.I guess I'm a bit scorned from all the corruption on both sides, I mean the current president hasn't even been in a year and it is apparent that he and his staff are corrupt to the gills.
Moderator's Warning: spam removed by Tucker Case
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?