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.
That per the US Constitution, no federal judge can be seated without Senate confirmation? But we knew that a long time ago because of Robert Bork, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, etc.
And the Merrick Garland precedent was set in 1992 by Joe Biden, who threatened GHWB with his now famous "don't even bother because we'll say no" speech.
Biden was within his Constitutional authority then, McConnell was with Garland, and any time the Senate doesn't confirm a presidential appointment, they are within their Constitutional authority.
Beyond that, what it also says is, and I quote the famous Emperor Barack I - elections have consequences.
The Senate doesn't have to ever vote to replace a Justice.
That is why elections have consequences. The Senate can prevent the President from stacking the Judicial against Congresses path.
Congress is the check to balance out on the President and the Judicial.
The President is the check on the Congress and Judicial
The Judicial is the check on the President & Congress.
LOL, another con who believes their own interpretation of the constitution is the One And Only Correct Interpretation of the constitution.
Not at all. I just know that some of the "interpretations" of the Constitution fabricated by leftists are completely, and clearly, wrong.
To give a few examples:
The idea that transferring tax money to people who did nothing to deserve it, is legal according to the Constitution.
The idea that Court justices and judges are permitted to change laws by the Constitution.
The idea that powers NOT given to the Fed govt by the Constitution can still be exercised by the Fed govt.
There are plenty more.
The reason liberals so violently oppose ANY of President Trump's candidates for the Supreme Court, is not because they dislike Hardiman, or Kavanaugh, or Barrett, or Kethledge. It's because they know any of those people will render verdicts that point out that the basic ideas behind modern liberalism, are unconstitutional. And there are no longer enough hard-left liberals on the Court to ignore the truth and outvote them.
It's the death knell for modern liberals in this country.
Exactly. Trumplings had to endure 8 years of Obama. Surely most of us rational folks will survive 4 years of Trump.
Some democrats aren't too worried about this pick because Kavanaugh isn't as conservative as some of the other finalists. Amy Coney Barrett is a lot more conservative than Kavanaugh, and many conservatives were privately frustrated that Trump didn't pick her.
It could have been a lot worse for liberals, and Kavanaugh was actually the best case scenario for them, considering the four finalists for SCOTUS.
Besides, if SCOTUS does try to roll back Roe v. Wade, NY Governor Cuomo says he'll sue:
And any power the Const didn't explicitly give it, was forbidden to the Fed, though states and lower govts could still exercise it if they wanted.
Since the crickets are getting pretty loud around here, off the top of my head, here are some other things clearly unconstitutional according to Roboteer's reasoning. Once again, here are the powers explicitly given to congress:
Quote:
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In addition to the Air Force, here are some things off the top of my head clearly not specified in the constitution and thus which, according to Roboteer, must be unconstitutional:
- National Parks (including National Monuments, National Forests, historic sites, wildlife refuges, etc)
- Border Patrol
- FAA
- National Weather Service
- NASA
- Social Security
Come to think of it, I could go on and on. It looks like, under Roboteer's scheme, about the only legal entities in the federal government are the Navy and Army (possibly the CIA), Justice Dept, Post Office, Transportation Dept (roads mentioned in constitution), maybe some aspects of the Commerce Dept, the State Dept., and not much else.
That per the US Constitution, no federal judge can be seated without Senate confirmation? But we knew that a long time ago because of Robert Bork, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, etc.
And the Merrick Garland precedent was set in 1992 by Joe Biden, who threatened GHWB with his now famous "don't even bother because we'll say no" speech.
Biden was within his Constitutional authority then, McConnell was with Garland, and any time the Senate doesn't confirm a presidential appointment, they are within their Constitutional authority.
Beyond that, what it also says is, and I quote the famous Emperor Barack I - elections have consequences.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s wise, and since when does a statement by Biden become precedent. They could have voted on Garland after the election in any event. McConnell also made statements regarding protections for the minority party when the shoe was on the other foot, now it’s a different tune. We need to get back to bipartisan support for appointments like Scalia and Ginsburg, lobbying groups making Supreme Court recommendations diminishes our democracy.
The one thing that's vital to support the liberal agenda of expanding government, taking over more and more authority to "help people", and transferring wealth from people who earned to to others who do nothing for it, is the act of "interpreting" the Constitution in ways different from the ones intended by the authors.
The Constitution was designed to create the Fed govt it describes, and to give that govt powers. And any power the Const didn't explicitly give it, was forbidden to the Fed, though states and lower govts could still exercise it if they wanted.
And among those forbidden powers, was the power to transfer wealth to people who did nothing to earn it, the power to mandate wage levels, the power to restrict guns and other weapons, the power to dictate what private individuals could do with their land and property, etc.
These forbidden powers are the central core of modern liberalism. They could amend the Constitution to give them to the Fed govt, but they know the people would never give them the 3/4 majority of the states' agreement, necessary to amendment for those things.
So their only alternative for enacting their power and keeping it, was to put judges on the Courts who would pretend the Constitution didn't mean what it says, that the Framers somehow meant the Fed to take over the setting of wage levels, restricting guns, buying votes with tax money etc., despite the document's specific prohibitions against its doing those things.
And now, for the first time since FDR put a majority of such dreamy-eyed wishful thinkers on the Federal courts during his four terms as President, we are about to see the Supreme Court finally return to a solid majority of justices who intend to rule according to what the Constitution actually says and means, instead of justices who claim they can find ways around it.
It doesn't even matter which candidate President Trump nominates to the Court, since all of them intend to uphold the text and meaning the Framers intended.
The liberals are screaming as never before. Because for the first time in living memory, they are about to lose their often-majority of justices in the highest court in the land. And thus lose their last bulwark against their agenda being (correctly) declared unconstitutional, one piece at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Three pages now, and so far not a single liberal has disagreed that these powers are (a) unconstitutional, and (b) vital to the liberal agenda.
Not hard to figure out why: They can't!
There are plenty more such things the liberals have been imposing on normal Americans, these are just a few examples. But the leftists are avoiding discussing them, like the plague.
Now four pages. Many liberals have popped in to this thread, but not one of them dares to discuss its actual subject. Nothing but namecalling, changing the subject, trolling with silly statements, whining that their diversions are being ignored etc.
Looks like there's one thing they absolutely don't want to talk about: Their long spree of Court decisions ever since West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, that go against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, is finally coming to an end. And all the prodigious work they've done since then to keep the spree going and build on it, is starting to circle the bowl at an increasing tempo.
This is the real origin of the screaming and hysteria we've been hearing from them from Reagan onward, and as President Trump begins to slam the door in their faces, with nothing they can do to stop the reversal.
Too bad, libbies. You've had your run. Now it's time for the country to begin getting shut of you and your agenda, and start getting back on track toward freedom(especially from overbearing govt), personal responsibility, and private charity.
First of all, I note that Donald Trump is violating the constitution since he is imposing tariffs on various items, which is a violation of #1 and #3, which was reserved for congress. But I digress.
Second of all, if we're to take your statement literally, then the Air Force is unconstitutional, because it doesn't explicitly say congress has the power to operate an Air Force.
Third, it would appear that when congress passes legislation to pay some bills and appropriate money, that would be unconstitutional (except, arguably, for the military), because according to you, congress is only allowed to do things the constitution explicitly says it has the power to do, and nowhere in there does it explicitly say that congress has the power to appropriate/distribute money.
I could go on and on with examples of things congress has been doing for 150 years or more which, according to your reasoning, is unconstitutional because the powers to do that aren't explicitly laid out in the constitution. You only complain about congress doing things you don't like, but you ignore the many things it does you have no problem with, but which would also be unconstitutional if we adopt your interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
I'm still awaiting roboteer to stop by and tell us the Air Force is unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Since the crickets are getting pretty loud around here, off the top of my head, here are some other things clearly unconstitutional according to Roboteer's reasoning. Once again, here are the powers explicitly given to congress:
In addition to the Air Force, here are some things off the top of my head clearly not specified in the constitution and thus which, according to Roboteer, must be unconstitutional:
- National Parks (including National Monuments, National Forests, historic sites, wildlife refuges, etc)
- Border Patrol
- FAA
- National Weather Service
- NASA
- Social Security
Come to think of it, I could go on and on. It looks like, under Roboteer's scheme, about the only legal entities in the federal government are the Navy and Army (possibly the CIA), Justice Dept, Post Office, Transportation Dept (roads mentioned in constitution), maybe some aspects of the Commerce Dept, the State Dept., and not much else.
It is clear Roboteer knows he cannot address my objections without making his philosophy about the Constitution look ridiculous, so he is forced to simply dismiss my objections out of hand by calling them "silly." It is the ultimate in cowardice.
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.
