On 6/17/2010 9:35 AM,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:50:03 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2010 4:55 PM,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:18:37 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2010 12:35 AM,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:37:50 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>> <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Judges INTERPRET the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SO this judge today says it's not illegal under the law and tomorrow the
>>>>>> new judge in the same chair decides it is illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't work that way 90% of the time
>>>>>
>>>>> Without changing the constitution---the "interpretation" of a body of
>>>>> law sets a precedent, becomes doctrine---such as Marbury, Gideon, or
>>>>> Brown and case law takes from the decisions/opinions those things with
>>>>> lower judges follow
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to forget that judges cannot read into law what can't
>>>>> withstand appellate or USSC rulings, and most don't reach that level
>>>>>
>>>>> But the gist of your incessant misconception of law is based on
>>>>> "literalism" and that is simply never been the case.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do I plan my life around shifting opinions? MAybe I should just hide
>>>>>> in my house from the law that's inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're constructing a straw-man out of nonsense "scenarious" and
>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very FEW laws ever rise to the level of having to be interpreted
>>>>> differently than the legislation that engendered it---but when a
>>>>> conflict does arise (harm)---then the case may be subject to lower
>>>>> court rulings---on up to and/or including the USSC
>>>>>
>>>>> But that percentage/number is very small.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most cases are dealt with and never go past the first level. THose
>>>>> that reach the next tier are even less. The USSC must grant cert to
>>>>> even if the case has merit ---and the just don't want to hear it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The laws "you plan your life around" are seldom issues of contention.
>>>> With Obama they are daily issues of contention as he ignores the
>>>> constitution.
>>>>
>>>> Health Care and forcing me to buy insurance?
>>>>
>>>> HELLO.... tap!tap!tap! can you hear me?
>>>
>>> My "day to day" changes
>>>> because the commerce clause was never corrected and the ambiguity
>>>> removed. Instead...
>>>
>>> Utter rubbisn
>>>
>>> The commerce clause written centuries ago simply cannot apply to
>>> modern existence.
>>>
>>>> The _DAILY_ encroachment into my life by the Federal government is via
>>>> laws that the Federal courts are "interpreting" to mean all manor of
>>>> things that the Original READING and the Original Constitution Writing
>>>> had NOT included.
>>>
>>> That's not a fucking "unconstitutional" act you simple witted idiot
>>>
>>> That's a WHINE---nothing more.
>>>
>>>> Take a court case where "Hinkley" the guy that shot Ronald Reagan,
>>>
>>> In fact a long diatribe of nonsense.....
>>>
>>>> It is the end of Equal Justice. *Social_Justice* and *Equal_Justice*
>>>> can *NOT* coexist.
>>>
>>> The two are not synomymous.
>>>
>>>> DELEGATE = 1. to give or commit (duties, powers, etc.) to another as
>>>> agent or representative; depute
>>>>
>>>> The founders never wanted the Federal government to hold a gun to my
>>>> head and tell me to buy Insurance
>>>
>>> The founders had absolutely NO conception of what modern society would
>>> be.
>>>
>>
>> The founders knew what freedom was and always will be..... it never
>> changes.
>
> The declaration enumerated grievances---the Constitution laid the
> FOUNDATION for dealing with them, innovated the 'basement" with an
> untested set of principles, and NO WHERE did it say that ALL issues
> had to be "in the constitution" as society and law changed.
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States *by the Constitution* ,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
Where it says "BY THE CONSTITUTION" means that it can't be "BY THE
COURTS" had they wanted the courts to delegate powers then they would
have said "BY THE CONSTITUTION OR THE COURTS"
Since it says "The powers not delegated to the United States" that means
that anything not stated clearly in the constitution as a power given to
the Federal government... is NOT and can't be given to them without a
constitutional amendment to clearly delegate that power.
Power is not ambiguous and so the words delegating power are also not
ambiguous. It is or it isn't. There is no sort of power, because the
government uses lethal force to implement their power, there can be no
ambiguity.
>>>> Free men
>>>> aren't forced by their government at gun point to hand over their cash
>>>> to buy from a specific Business.
>>>
>>> Sure they are
>>>
>>
>> NO but you don't want freedom.
>
> You're free to leave this nation----if you don't like living here.
>
NO I'm not.... I have to ask for a passport.
>>> By enactment of laws---using the accepted (by the founders and
>>> signators of the constittution) method of the rule of law.
>>>
>>>
>>>> When the Courts find something "new" in an existing law to use that
>>>> wasn't there yesterday and previously unknown under that law,
>>>
>>> The Insurance reform law wasn't existing prior to it's enactment
>>>
>>
>> It's new in the constitution,
>
> There was something "new" the first decade after ratification. How is
> that a big revelation to you?
You want to put something "new" in the constitution without an
amendment, how did you just do that. There is no process to change the
constitution without an amendment.
>>> Now the Courts will "interpret" what that law "means"
>>>
>>
>> NO they will interpret the constitution to justify the law by
>> "interpreting"
>
> Now you're being silly again.
What is happening, it's being taken to the courts which will say the
government has a "new" right to meddle in my personal medical choices.
This was never in the constitution before..... so the courts saying
it's there, is *delegating* that power to the Federal Government, and
that is unconstitutional. The court only has the power to make an
OPINION writing saying it was the intent(not to rewrite the
constitution), then the constitution has to be fixed with an amendment
to give that power..... you are skipping the part where our
representatives do their job and represent us.
The courts have ZERO power to rewrite any constitutional power. They
can have an OPINION but Court OPINIONS have no Constitutional power
because they are NOT in the Constitution yet.
|
Organizations 
