19
   

How would you fix the U.S Government?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:45 am
@rosborne979,


Not at all - the states have the constitutional right to look over each and every federal law and
decide for themselves if they want to accept and enforce the law or reject and nullify the law.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:47 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Not at all - the states have the constitutional right to look over each and every federal law and decide for themselves if they want to accept and enforce the law or reject and nullify the law.

Not currently they don't.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:48 am
@rosborne979,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I 'd create a new Court of the Constitution
that OUTRANKS any other court in America,
whose mission it woud be to prevent ANY deviation
from the Original Constitutional Intendment of the Founders,
as expressed in the Constitution (as amended, per its Article 5).
BARRON v. BALTIMORE and the SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES'd be overruled, such that the Constitution DOES mean exactly what it says it means.
rosborne979 wrote:
Human language is imprecise and always open to interpretation, this includes the Constitution by default. You cannot escape the nature of Language. So the Supreme Court already exists to do exactly what you describe, and they have done it and are doing it. You just disagree with their decisions (interpretation), which is your problem, not a problem with the system.
As an optimist, I 'd love to agree with u,
but in the face of Barron v. Baltimore, Slaughterhouse Cases and Wickard v. Filburn,
I find it impossible to believe that the USSC acted in good faith.


rosborne979 wrote:
What you are really proposing is a court with backs (with an iron fist) OmSigDavid's interpretation of the constitution.
That's fine if you're the dictator, but I got here first.
B4 I did ?
I call for a genuine, application of the historically accurate intendment of the Founders.





David
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

As an optimist, I 'd love to agree with u,
but in the face of Barron v. Baltimore, Slaughterhouse Cases and Wickard v. Filburn I find it impossible
to believe that the USSC acted in good faith.

Your interpretation is no more valid than theirs is, and in point of fact, it's decidedly less valid.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:57 am
@rosborne979,
That's why I said they should have this right and that I would give them the right in my original post.

H2O MAN wrote:

I would give each and every state the right to form committees to consider all federal laws to see if these federal laws violate constitutionality... if the committee(s) deem that a federal law is unconstitutional the state(s) will not enforce the law - the law is null & void.


0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:57 am
@rosborne979,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
As an optimist, I 'd love to agree with u,
but in the face of Barron v. Baltimore, Slaughterhouse Cases and Wickard v. Filburn,
I find it impossible to believe that the USSC acted in good faith.
rosborne979 wrote:
Your interpretation is no more valid than theirs is, and in point of fact, it's decidedly less valid.
If a court, screws the citizens, violating their rights, at least thay have the right to complain about it.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:00 am
@rosborne979,
I guess, as a liberal,
u love to cling to the authoritarian-collectivist, anti-freedom position ?
U feel most comfortable there ?




David
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:01 am


Nullification
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:47 am
Well... Here's your starting point... go. It's not really going to fit in the box...

http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/DeathandTaxesPosterSize.jpg

for a better view: http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/DeathandTaxesPosterSize.jpg

A
R
T
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:53 am
@failures art,

A much better starting point


http://www.ncteaparty.com/wp-content/uploads/fairtax.jpg
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 12:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I guess, as a liberal,
u love to cling to the authoritarian-collectivist, anti-freedom position ?
U feel most comfortable there ?

Many of my views aren't liberal. And I'm not sure what those other things are.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 09:30 am
One of the first things we need to do to fix our Federal government is to stop all funding for Planned Parenthood. This is not the Constitutional role of the Federal Government.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/15/planned-parenthood-and-the-sov
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 09:40 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
One of the first things we need to do to fix our Federal government is to stop all funding for Planned Parenthood.
This is not the Constitutional role of the Federal Government.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/15/planned-parenthood-and-the-sov
U know, I 've always been a BIG supporter of freedom of abortion,
and I believe that the funding thereof is very cost-efficient,
in terms of fiscal savings on future prison services, etc.,
but in candor, I must ADMIT that I 'm in doubt qua
the Constitutional legitimacy of paying for anyone's medical treatment,
or surgical treatment other than members of the Armed Forces.





David
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 10:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The government's job is to protect the citizens to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.......unless you happen to be in the womb.

That is un-Amerian.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 10:09 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
The government's job is to protect the citizens to the right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.......unless you happen to be in the womb.

That is un-Amerian.
That 's not right. U r confused.
U 'd have some trouble finding jurisdictional predicates that support your position.





David
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 10:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It's common sense. A human being is a human being, regardless of the stage of development. It's not government's role to determine who is worthy of murder and who isn't. That's sick. If you want to have an abortion, have at it, but the Federal Government using the citizen's wealth to pay for it is not the role of the Federal Government.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 10:36 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
It's common sense.
No, no, no, Renaldo.
Absolutely NOT. No lawyer 'd tell u that the understanding
of the jurisdiction of ANY government is "common sense".
That jurisdiction is ascertained by meticulous ANALYSIS
of the enabling instruments (usually constitutions) of the government in question.





Renaldo Dubois wrote:
A human being is a human being, regardless of the stage of development.
Assuming that to be true, for the moment: SO WHAT???
The victim of the intrusion still has the right of self defense,
regardless of whether the intruder is human or not,
the same as when we kill a burglar or a robber, who r humen.
It proceeds on the principle as purging tapeworms, fleas
or toxic bacteria; she has the right to defend herself
from humen and from tapeworms, either or both.




Renaldo Dubois wrote:
It's not government's role to determine who is worthy of murder and who isn't. That's sick.
If you want to have an abortion, have at it, but the Federal Government using the citizen's wealth to pay for it
is not the role of the Federal Government.
IF u concede jurisdiction to a government
to attend to any surgical care for citizens, it is the same in principle to include defensive abortions in that.
Chicks have NO DUTY to produce babies against their will.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 10:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Stop listening to the lawyers......that would be the second thing to do with the Federal Government.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 10:41 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
Stop listening to the lawyers......that would be the second thing to do with the Federal Government.
That is the same thing as having NO LAW.

Is it possible to have a government with no law ?????
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 10:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
There are too many laws that are un-American in our Federal Government. That's the problem.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/26/2022 at 05:56:14