Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree34Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:05 PM   #121
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
You said that I said republicans have no power. Where did I say that or are you just lying like usual?
Fayt is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:08 PM   #122
Senior Member
 
roastpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,881
Hey Fayat, start a new post.
roastpork is offline  
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:10 PM   #123
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 18,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
You said that I said republicans have no power. Where did I say that or are you just lying like usual?
You said they lost the election and they should pretty much sit down and shut up on funding.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:21 PM   #124
Magister
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
You're scared to answer. I'm asking if you believe the supreme court should be able to strike down and make up laws. Do you believe in judicial review?
Really? You are accusing me of being scared to answer your irrelevant question, which is only posed because you are avoiding a page of questions.

For starters, you do not know what judicial revue is, no clue of its origination, and no clue of its application--judicial activism and judicial pacifism are lost on you.

The Supreme Court can condider if a particular piece of legislation or an executive act aligns with constitutional principles. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to "make up' laws." That would be a violation of their constitutional authority, and a violation of the seperation of powers.

I have no idea where you are going with this, but there is no application of the judicial review doctrine and section four of the 14th Amendment regarding a president selling treasuary bonds.

Answer these.

Do you know what a national emergency is?

Do you know what a state of emergency is?

Do you know what the National Emergencies Act is?

Do you know the difference between the two?

Which one is declared under Article 352, and which one is declared under Article 356?

What do either one have to do with financial aid? Did Bus sell treasury bonds?

Did he provide financial aid or was the financial aid acts of Congress?

You might be safer trying answer my questions rather than getting further over your head with this diversionary avenue.

The president has nothing to do with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. It would probably help if you had a clue what you were talking about:
Article IV Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
No president has emergency powers under the Constitution, and no president has used any power in a similar situation.

You are completely in the dark on the separation of powers and what is and what is not delegated to the legislation and the president by the Constitution.

Rather than demonstrating how little you know about this subject, and attempting to rebut what I said with nothing but how you wish things were, try refuting what I stated by answering these questions.

Show me where the emergency powers of the president exist in the Constitution:

Show me any clause in the 14th Amendment that applies to the president.

Show me in Article II where the president has the ability to borrow money.

What does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution mean?

Explain why the Congress that wrote the 14th Amendment, and were in the process of kicking Johnson out of office, would give him unprecedented power, their power, to borrow money on behalf of the United States.

Last edited by Jimmyb; October 30th, 2013 at 01:24 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:43 PM   #125
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
You said they lost the election and they should pretty much sit down and shut up on funding.
You said that I said republicans have no power. Where did I say that or are you just lying like usual?
Fayt is offline  
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:44 PM   #126
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Really? You are accusing me of being scared to answer your irrelevant question, which is only posed because you are avoiding a page of questions.

For starters, you do not know what judicial revue is, no clue of its origination, and no clue of its application--judicial activism and judicial pacifism are lost on you.

The Supreme Court can condider if a particular piece of legislation or an executive act aligns with constitutional principles. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to "make up' laws." That would be a violation of their constitutional authority, and a violation of the seperation of powers.

I have no idea where you are going with this, but there is no application of the judicial review doctrine and section four of the 14th Amendment regarding a president selling treasuary bonds.

Answer these.

Do you know what a national emergency is?

Do you know what a state of emergency is?

Do you know what the National Emergencies Act is?

Do you know the difference between the two?

Which one is declared under Article 352, and which one is declared under Article 356?

What do either one have to do with financial aid? Did Bus sell treasury bonds?

Did he provide financial aid or was the financial aid acts of Congress?

You might be safer trying answer my questions rather than getting further over your head with this diversionary avenue.

The president has nothing to do with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. It would probably help if you had a clue what you were talking about:
Article IV Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
No president has emergency powers under the Constitution, and no president has used any power in a similar situation.

You are completely in the dark on the separation of powers and what is and what is not delegated to the legislation and the president by the Constitution.

Rather than demonstrating how little you know about this subject, and attempting to rebut what I said with nothing but how you wish things were, try refuting what I stated by answering these questions.

Show me where the emergency powers of the president exist in the Constitution:

Show me any clause in the 14th Amendment that applies to the president.

Show me in Article II where the president has the ability to borrow money.

What does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution mean?

Explain why the Congress that wrote the 14th Amendment, and were in the process of kicking Johnson out of office, would give him unprecedented power, their power, to borrow money on behalf of the United States.
If you're not scared, answer the question. Do you believe the S.C. should have the power of judicial review?
Fayt is offline  
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:46 PM   #127
Magister
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
If you're not scared, answer the question. Do you believe the S.C. should have the power of judicial review?
I answered it; try reading.
Thanks from TNVolunteer73
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 30th, 2013, 02:11 PM   #128
Senior Member
 
roastpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,881
Workers furloughed in U.S. shutdown must return jobless benefits - Reuters News - Breaking News
roastpork is offline  
Old October 30th, 2013, 04:25 PM   #129
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 18,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
You said that I said republicans have no power. Where did I say that or are you just lying like usual?
That is what you said when you said so they should sit back and let liberals screw us like they have with OBAMACARE.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 08:29 AM   #130
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I answered it; try reading.
So where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court can make up and strike down laws via rulings? Where?
Fayt is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 08:46 AM   #131
Magister
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
So where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court can make up and strike down laws via rulings? Where?
I have no idea what you are asking.What do you mean "make up and strike down laws via rulings"?

Who said the Constitution sad they could "make up" laws?
Jimmyb is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 09:44 AM   #132
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
That is what you said when you said so they should sit back and let liberals screw us like they have with OBAMACARE.
Quote please or are you just another republican lying. Which you are doing.
Fayt is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 09:46 AM   #133
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I have no idea what you are asking.What do you mean "make up and strike down laws via rulings"?

Who said the Constitution sad they could "make up" laws?
In other words, where in the constitution does it say that the S.C. have the power of judicial review? Where in the constitution does it say that the S.C. have the power to say weather if something is constitutional or not via S.C. rulings.

Where? I'll wait while you google.

Last edited by Fayt; November 1st, 2013 at 09:53 AM.
Fayt is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 10:43 AM   #134
Magister
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
In other words, where in the constitution does it say that the S.C. have the power of judicial review? Where in the constitution does it say that the S.C. have the power to say weather if something is constitutional or not via S.C. rulings.

Where? I'll wait while you google.
Why would I have to Google it? Just because you are dependent on Google, does not mean everyone is.

When Adams attempted to create and pack the courts with federalist jurists because the federalist were soundly defeated in the election of 1800. It was Adam’s Secretary of State, John Marshal, who signed and sealed the commissions. This would put Marshal in a bit of a predicament as a Chief Justice regarding the appointments. The political pressure was palpable with Marbury v. Madison because of Marshall’s role as Secretary of State.

The Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus without the involvement of appellate jurisdiction. Marshal acknowledged this, but still took the case.

The court ruled that Jefferson and Madison were wrong to have prevented Marbury from taking the office of justice of the peace for D.C., Marshal ruled that Marbury had a right to the position, but then Marshall stated that the court did not have jurisdiction over the matter and ruled 6-0 in favor of Jefferson and Madison.
During the Constitutional Convention, there was no mention of a judicial veto; the only thing close was the Virginia Plan, which would have the president and several federal judges accepting or rejecting legislation. There was no explicit rejection of the court exercising authority over Congress regarding legislation, the 55 delegates discussed and knew well that the court had the right to review laws as constitutional or not.

Madison stated this at the convention regarding the courts: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” And Mason added, “In their expository capacity as Judges…they could declare an unconstitutional law void.” The only contention and debate was whether or not the court should review the laws before their enactment or after the fact if challenged, as reviewing legislation in advance would be a conflict with their roles as justices.

The Constitution did not define the court’s role in Article III, Section I and Section II, thus the purpose of the Judicial Acts:


Section I:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office
Section II:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--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.
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.

Perhaps you could provide me with when judicial review was first used and when the term was first used, and
what affect the Marshal ruling has on 19th century law.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2013, 05:08 AM   #135
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
If that is the case, why don't they have any enforcement mechanism? If that's the case, why in the entire 18th century, the Supreme Court never once struck down a law or claimed it have the power to do so based on the constitution? You're twisting the law to mean something that it's not. Here's the 2nd paragraph of article 3 section 2. quote;

"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."


Nowhere does it say in there that they have the power to strike down laws passed by congress? That power was self given by John Marshall in 1803.


Even the REPUBLICAN Newt Gingrich says that it's not in the constitution.

Gingrich on SCOTUS - YouTube

Gingrich agree with Thomas Jefferson. Gingrich assert that congress can pass laws that limits the powers and the behavior of the S.C. The constitution in section 2 of article 3 which establishes the judiciary does congress the power to defined and limit can and can not do. Quote

"The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, which such exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make."

So if congress disagrees with for example the Citizen United decision, they can simply pass a law saying that the S.C. overs step its authority. The founders did it this way because they wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people and congress is reelected every 2 years. That's where the founders wanted most of the power and it's defined in article 1 of the constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote this letter to Mr. Jarvis in 1820 who thought the SC should have the power to strike down laws.

"You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.... I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society, but the people themselves."


Alexander Helmiton wrote in Federalist Papers #78

"The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors but holds the swords of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever...it proves incontestable, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power' that it can never attack with success either of the other two."

Thomas Jefferson disagrees with John Marshal 1803 decision.

“the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departmentsof the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.” If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

John Marshall and the court backed down a little and for the next 20 years Marshal never again ruled a law unconstitutional. He never again said that a few unelected judges had more power that the other branches. But the the 5 right-wing judges today want you to believe is that they can make George Bush president without any appeal, make money into speech, and turn corporations into people without no say from anybody else. They're wrong and you're wrong JP because it's not what the constitution says. And we should challenge the doctrine of judicial review which the court took that power onto it self. Thomas Jefferson wrote.

"The judiciary of the Unite States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I will say, that 'against this every man should raise his voice,' and, more, should uplift his arm."


"For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny,,,,,,,"

This power should be with we the people and with the elected official and not with 5 judges who claim the right to rule over every other branch of government. The constitution doesn't grants it that power.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012.../#.UnZbI1N40fY
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...on/jefl263.php

Last edited by Fayt; November 3rd, 2013 at 05:24 AM.
Fayt is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2013, 10:17 AM   #136
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 18,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
If that is the case, why don't they have any enforcement mechanism? If that's the case, why in the entire 18th century, the Supreme Court never once struck down a law or claimed it have the power to do so based on the constitution? You're twisting the law to mean something that it's not. Here's the 2nd paragraph of article 3 section 2. quote;

"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."


Nowhere does it say in there that they have the power to strike down laws passed by congress? That power was self given by John Marshall in 1803.


Even the REPUBLICAN Newt Gingrich says that it's not in the constitution.

Gingrich on SCOTUS - YouTube

Gingrich agree with Thomas Jefferson. Gingrich assert that congress can pass laws that limits the powers and the behavior of the S.C. The constitution in section 2 of article 3 which establishes the judiciary does congress the power to defined and limit can and can not do. Quote

"The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, which such exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make."

So if congress disagrees with for example the Citizen United decision, they can simply pass a law saying that the S.C. overs step its authority. The founders did it this way because they wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people and congress is reelected every 2 years. That's where the founders wanted most of the power and it's defined in article 1 of the constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote this letter to Mr. Jarvis in 1820 who thought the SC should have the power to strike down laws.

"You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.... I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society, but the people themselves."


Alexander Helmiton wrote in Federalist Papers #78

"The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors but holds the swords of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever...it proves incontestable, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power' that it can never attack with success either of the other two."

Thomas Jefferson disagrees with John Marshal 1803 decision.

“the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departmentsof the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.” If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

John Marshall and the court backed down a little and for the next 20 years Marshal never again ruled a law unconstitutional. He never again said that a few unelected judges had more power that the other branches. But the the 5 right-wing judges today want you to believe is that they can make George Bush president without any appeal, make money into speech, and turn corporations into people without no say from anybody else. They're wrong and you're wrong JP because it's not what the constitution says. And we should challenge the doctrine of judicial review which the court took that power onto it self. Thomas Jefferson wrote.

"The judiciary of the Unite States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I will say, that 'against this every man should raise his voice,' and, more, should uplift his arm."


"For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny,,,,,,,"

This power should be with we the people and with the elected official and not with 5 judges who claim the right to rule over every other branch of government. The constitution doesn't grants it that power.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012.../#.UnZbI1N40fY
To Thomas Ritchie Monticello, December 25, 1820 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
So you are sying Roe V Wade (abortion was never passed to be legal it was a law made by the 5 judges)

So you think that Separate but equal should be the law, remember that was overturned by 5 judges.

or is it you just don't like Judical Activism when it is against what you believe.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2013, 10:27 AM   #137
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
It was the S.C. that prolong these problems. Thing would have been better without the SC rulings.
Fayt is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2013, 10:41 AM   #138
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 18,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
It was the S.C. that prolong these problems. Thing would have been better without the SC rulings.
But the SC is not Republcian or Democrat.. it is a mixture of both.

That 5 judge panel voted in favor of Obama more than the GOP



YOu lose again.

Last edited by TNVolunteer73; November 3rd, 2013 at 10:43 AM.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2013, 01:01 PM   #139
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
That's not my point, so you lose.
Fayt is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2013, 01:05 PM   #140
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 18,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
That's not my point, so you lose.
Nope you have been proven incorrect in every turn

1. Presidents cannto borrow money

2. You omit Incurred in the 14th amendment.

3. You don't know the difference in TOTAL deficits and % of GDP

4. You don't know who controlled congress when

Should I continue.

You think that government is your personal butt wiper because you are not mature enough to do it yourself.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
government


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21 The White House The White House 0 August 30th, 2013 10:00 AM
Are you for Republicans style big government or Democrat style big government? Nwolfe35 Libertarian 154 June 1st, 2013 12:26 PM
Government Motors tadpole256 Big Government 3 August 26th, 2010 04:10 PM
War and Big Government leighredf Big Government 15 October 4th, 2009 09:54 AM
Big Government or Small Government? RevrseTheCurse04 Opinion Polls 74 September 25th, 2006 07:23 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.