Eric Holder as Attn Gen. Criminalize 2nd First Step. - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Eric Holder as Attn Gen. Criminalize 2nd First Step.

  1. #21
    Quickest example I could find:
    Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    16th Amendment--to allow income taxes by the Federal Government--was passed because the SCOTUS found the income tax law unconstitutional.

    This means that, if the Obama government passes gun control legislation, it can be ruled unconstitutional after years of litigation in the courts. Then the feds would have to get an Amendment to the Constitution passed in Congress and ratified by the states.

    Unless, of course, the composition of SCOTUS changes before then...
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    I am sure he knows. I don't think it is a lack of knowledge on his part but rather like with most of them the truth does not fit his agenda.
    If he knew, he would be making more sense.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    The issue of judicial vs. executive is more up in the air right now than it has historically been most of the time. Cheney worked diligently to elevate the power of the President (and his own office) as far as he could get them, while giving absolutely no regard to the fact that Bush wouldn't be around for a third term. Obama will be unwilling to give that power back.

    SCOTUS doesn't rule on anything until an actual case happens and it either works its way up, or they give it a writ. Obama's administration will not put forth any legislation that addresses any constitutional issues until they first rearrange the Court in their favor.

    A major assault on 2A will probably come following a SCOTUS appointment that replaces a conservative justice, but Obama's people may have to get busy if Republicans manage to gain back some seats in Congress in 2010. The justices that we really need to be worried about losing are Scalia and Kennedy; both of those are 72, and voted favorably on Heller. Ginsburg is the oldest at 75, but they couldn't replace her with anyone more liberal.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    The issue of judicial vs. executive is more up in the air right now than it has historically been most of the time. Cheney worked diligently to elevate the power of the President (and his own office) as far as he could get them, while giving absolutely no regard to the fact that Bush wouldn't be around for a third term. Obama will be unwilling to give that power back.

    SCOTUS doesn't rule on anything until an actual case happens and it either works its way up, or they give it a writ. Obama's administration will not put forth any legislation that addresses any constitutional issues until they first rearrange the Court in their favor.

    A major assault on 2A will probably come following a SCOTUS appointment that replaces a conservative justice, but Obama's people may have to get busy if Republicans manage to gain back some seats in Congress in 2010. The justices that we really need to be worried about losing are Scalia and Kennedy; both of those are 72, and voted favorably on Heller. Ginsburg is the oldest at 75, but they couldn't replace her with anyone more liberal.
    Check your facts. John Paul Stevens is the oldest and most senior justice on the court; he is 88.

    Anyway, the justices who have been speculated as being most likely to step down are Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter, all of whom are liberal, and none of whom would change the balance of the court with liberal replacements.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by johnsteele View Post
    With all due respect, you are simply wrong. The Court has often overruled both of the other branches when theiir legislation or actions was unconstiutional. One that comes quickly to mind had to do with the line-item veto. Congress passed legislation granting the President a line-item veto. This was challenged to the Supreme Court which struck it down.

    NO branch of our government is currently all-powerfull. We are in grave danger in the next few years as the Democrats have control of the Whitehouse AND the Congress. Obama WILL get to appoint everal justices to the Court and this will be a VERY VERY bad confluence of events. We MUST regain control of the House and the Senate in 2010 or Obama will have free reign to remake the nation as he sees fit.
    Will all due respect RIGHT BACK AT YOU...

    Historically, the MAJORITY OF THE TIME, the SCOTUS has refused to even hear cases challenging an action by the Executive Branch and or Legislative Branch, for the reasons cited aforesaid and is on record as such...

    Further, 100% of the cases challenging the Clinton-Biden AWB Ban of 1994 that stood for 10 years; they REFUSED TO EVEN HEAR!

    United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was the first Supreme Court of the United States decision to directly address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution...

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER No. 07290. (2008) was the second Supreme Court of the United States decision to directly address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Neither involved a decision by the Executive or Legislative branch of the federal government...

  7. The legal case Marbury v. Madison, the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States, is an interpretation of the Constitution as applying to the law and politics of government. It implies the power of federal courts to consider or overturn any congressional and state legislation or other official governmental action deemed inconsistent with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or federal law.
    Look the case up for yourself. Judicial Review is a power the SCOTUS has over both other branches of government. Now, if they CHOOSE not to hear the case, that's a total different story. Your first arguement was they do not have jurisdiction. The above mentioned case shows they do.

    There is also this, copied directly from the SCOTUS:

    Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, 2):
    “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under thisConstitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Minis-ters and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Contro- versies 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 dif-ferent States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants ofdifferent States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizensor Subjects.
    “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those inwhich 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 Con-gress shall make.”
    Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes,under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. 1251 et seq., and various special statutes

    Note, it refers to the US Constitution. The SCOTUS has jurisdiction over the laws of the country. That would mean any law passed by Congress or by Executive Order by the President. It's in plain type in the US Constitution. If you need further proof, please do not hesitate to ask.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    Don't care what u say no one was more frightening than Janet Reno... Ruby Ridge, Waco, N some small town in TEXAS I forget which that she wanted to level N Billy had to reign her in... The SCOUS DC decision went a long way toward shooting his opinion down.

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Check your facts. John Paul Stevens is the oldest and most senior justice on the court; he is 88.
    Oh yes...and him.

    Anyway, the justices who have been speculated as being most likely to step down are Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter, all of whom are liberal, and none of whom would change the balance of the court with liberal replacements.
    Exactly...so IMO we have time. But over the span of 8 years, things could change.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  10. Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    Exactly...so IMO we have time. But over the span of 8 years, things could change.
    Let us HOPE AND PRAY it is NOT EIGHT YEARS of this idiot!!!

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by magicman007 View Post
    Let us HOPE AND PRAY it is NOT EIGHT YEARS of this idiot!!!
    He can do a lot of damage in four.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast