Where is the US economy headed?

@plainoldme,

I think fingers have replaced them.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Ican isn't Massagato. Although they are closely related.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

And you didn't answer my question ican..

Quote:

So who was given the power to decide what the founders thought ican?

I see nowhere in the Constitution where it says "ican" decides the meaning of the Constitution. So who gets to decide the meaning? This is simple stuff ican. It's right there in the Constitution.

1 Reply

@parados,

I support judicial review wherein the judges interpret the law in a manner consistent with the interpretations of the adopters of the Constitution and its amendments.

Judges were not granted by the Constitution the power to legislate its meaning or to amend its meaning.

Quote:

Article III
Section 1. 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.

4 Replies

@parados,

By blood, I presume. LOL

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the constitution to determine if laws or actions are constitutional. Nothing wrong with that. Our problem has been liberal judges that have come up with goofy and erroneous rulings by using twisted arguments. But we still have the privilege of being able to read it ourselves, ican, so that the truth cannot be hidden, and maybe some future judges with common sense can make things right, that is if they don't take former case histories too seriously, they instead make sound decisions based upon the constitution rather than some erroneous decision by former justices.

5 Replies

@okie,

Your REAL problem is that many of the judges in question were in fact Conservatives.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I find it rather humorous how you leave part of the Constitution out when answering my question ican.

You left out this part ican...

Quote:

Section 2. 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

Judges are given the power to decide all cases concerning the law which means any questions about the meaning of the law are included.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the constitution to determine if laws or actions are constitutional. Nothing wrong with that. Our problem has been liberal judges that have come up with goofy and erroneous rulings by using twisted arguments.

Can you tell us where in the Constitution it says they have to interpret the law a specific way? I am just curious how you can make **** up and then believe it so where does the Constitution say it can only be decided one way and that is the way you want it to?

The constitution says the courts have power to decide all cases concerning questions about the law and the Constitution (since the Constitution is law.)
No where does it say they only get to decide those cases one way nor does it say their rulings don't count if you don't agree with them.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the constitution to determine if laws or actions are constitutional. Nothing wrong with that. Our problem has been liberal judges that have come up with goofy and erroneous rulings by using twisted arguments. But we still have the privilege of being able to read it ourselves, ican, so that the truth cannot be hidden, and maybe some future judges with common sense can make things right, that is if they don't take former case histories too seriously, they instead make sound decisions based upon the constitution rather than some erroneous decision by former justices.

I absolutely agree.

Perhaps the Leftist Liberals who repeatedly malign you and I do not like making rational responses, because they do not know why they believe what they say they believe, or because they do not actually believe what they say they believe!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

That's a very funny statement coming from the one who has his own interpretation of our Constitution - which differs from the SC and most legal scholars.

0 Replies

@parados,

There is nothing, zero, in Article III or in any other Article or Amendment in the Constitution that grants or delegates any part of the judiciary the power to legislate or amend the Constitution. The judiciary is strictly limited to interpreting the Constituion as orinally adopted and originally amended according to Article V.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article III.
Section 1. 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 2. 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.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall
be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Perhaps the Leftist Liberals who repeatedly malign you and I do not like making rational responses, because they do not know why they believe what they say they believe, or because they do not actually believe what they say they believe!

It would be interesting to know what they actually believe. Some have just recently been praising Fidel Castro, so perhaps many of them here are actually Marxists or communists for all I know. Cyclops has admitted to liking aspects of Marxism along with some aspects of capitalism. I have pointed it out, and of course he doesn't agree, that Mussolini thought he would choose the good aspects of communism and capitalism into a "Third Way," to form a more perfect philosophy. That system was called Fascism, and of course we know Hitler's Nazism was similar to Fascism. So it would also seem that cyclops is some sort of Fascist, right?

As I've already said, some of the liberal opinions here are nothing short of bizarre, ican.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Let me know when you can find an instance of the judiciary legislating or amending the Constitution.

It seems you are having problems with the English language ican.

Which of the Constitutional amendments are you claiming was done by the judiciary, ican?

2 Replies

@parados,

He not only has trouble with the English language, but he doesn't have any idea what our constitution is about.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Not another who doesn't see things your way eh ci.

You have the same answer everytime.

By my standards you can barely read or write. Your vocabulary is pathetic for an adult and your use of figures of speech, other that stupid assertions, is non-existant.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Assertions? Please list them for me.

1 Reply

@parados,

There is nothing-- zero--in Article III or in any other Article or Amendment of the Constitution that grants or delegates to any part of the judiciary the power to legislate or amend the Constitution. The judiciary is strictly limited to interpreting the Constituion as originally adopted, or as subsequently amended according to Article V.

The Judiciary has claimed it legal:
(1) for the Congress and President to pass laws permitting the government to transfer peoples' earned income to people who have not earned it.;

(2) for a person's physical property to be transferred by government to another person for private use, in violation of the 5th Amendment;

(3) for a legal public voter approved state referendum (California) to be overturned by the Judiciary;

(4) for peoples' income dollars to be taxed at different rates depending on the amount of their income, in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution;

...

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

Our problem has been liberal judges that have come up with goofy and erroneous rulings by using twisted arguments.

Please be more specific; your generalities have no meaning. Provide us with some examples that are "goofy and erroneous using twisted arguments" by liberal judges?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Why continue to reply to emotional responses?

Are you looking for someone to be psychological when they may have psychological problems? I am in no way trying to be hateful I am only shareing my observations with you.
I do believe that all of us have psychological problems as strange as that may seem.
Some of us seem to exhibit them more often than others!

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know