Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess a better would be: only those Senate and House bills with 100 percent approval would be sent to the President.
Anyway, it is all hooey.
2/3rds works there, then if the people find harm to liberty by that legislation edging on the constitution, they would take it to the courts and the government lawyers would be trying to get a unanimous decision it is constitutional what their clients are doing to the people.
You bet it would be lopsided in the peoples favor, to protect liberty.
I'm saying that if it brought to the supreme court. The government has enacted legislation.
A person or group of people find unconstitutional.
If a lower court did not find it to be constitutional by unanimous decision, for government to do what the legislation says government can do to the person or people harmed. The legislation would be deemed unconstitutional on the grounds of the case for doubt. Things life & death, freedom & Liberty, should be without doubt.
If the lower court deemed it to be constitutional with a unanimous decision, then an appeal to the higher courts would be in order. To see if a unanimous decision can be argued there.
Liberty would always remain with the people, when in doubt.
Liberty remains with the people now. We vote every 2 years for members of the House, every 6 years for members of the Senate, and every 4 years for the presidency.
Liberty remains with the people now. We vote every 2 years for members of the House, every 6 years for members of the Senate, and every 4 years for the presidency.
Quit trying to tear down America.
And when they make legislation, it is not always constitutional. There should be no doubt. That is why it is my opinion, and only an opinion, that 9-0 rulings would remove any doubt. about constitutionality, of government legislation to government people.
Sounds like?.. I wasn't clear enough not to come to a concise conclusion?
The Bill of Rights secures freedom and liberty. Keeping government legislation from treading and breaking it, is now, not liking the Constitution. That is a stretch, but it went there.
Since you want to make it personal and about me, instead of what I said, the better conclusion would have been, It sounds like I don't like legislation, were there is doubt it is constitutional.
And which part of the Constitution says decisions should be based on all or nothing? If that were the case, we wouldn't have a country to begin with because even then an all or nothing vote would have failed.
This has nothing to do with "personal," simply responding to your post with how it is incorrect. Maybe a US history course at your local community college would be a good idea.
Someday you kids will grow up and realize that no government on Earth is in any real way "by the consent of the governed". The Congress typically has approval rates in the single-digits.
The Supreme Court, and the Constitution for that matter, has no actual authority over anyone. Why would it? It only has authority if you accept its so-called authority as legitimate.
But who exactly ratified/signed our Constitution? Certainly not you and me. And when it was ratified, only free white men, over the age of 21, who owned land, were allowed to vote. Which was, at the time, roughly 10% of the entire population of the United States. And it wasn't as if the decision to ratify the Constitution was unanimous in the first place. This country was split about the Constitution back then, just as much as it is split about everything. And for that matter, not all people who can vote, do vote.
I would say, at most, 5% of the four million inhabitants in America in 1789 actually voted in favor of our Constitution. Yet, this Constitution, which was never by any real sense by "The people of the United States", should bind generations of unborn, indefinitely, based on what exactly?
For that matter, it isn't as if this government is what the founders actually intended, and everyone who gives it any consideration knows that to be true. They condition it by ranting about how the founders were racists and owned slaves, or that they couldn't have imagined a world with computers and airplanes and cell phones and nuclear weapons, etc.
Lets just admit to ourselves what our Constitution actually says and means. It means whatever our government(IE those in power) says it means. What else could it mean?
This country is a joke, and the only reason you people pretend it is legitimate, is either because you benefit from it, or because you don't see an alternative. Don't pretend it is anything else.
"Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other or at least no more accurate definition of a despotism than this." - Lysander Spooner
"The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867
Great idea, Heller decision and Citizens United would have never made it.
States could continue to make up their own crazy laws without any intervention, you sure you want that.
With Thomas stepping down after the election, the prospects of getting a good SCOTUS improve greatly. Hillary will certainly make very good choices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
