|
Post by SFC (R) B on Jun 28, 2018 15:03:18 GMT -5
I am generally a fiscal conservative and somewhat of a social libertarian. I can say that I, like most conservatives have felt that Kennedy had let us down seriously on a couple of serious issues. By announcing his retirement now and giving the president the opportunity to fill his spot prior to the midterms, perhaps, he has given something back. I am one who believes in the intent of the framers and the integrity of the Constitution itself as the basis for our Republic. With the appointees of Obama and Clinton (especially Ginsburg) out to run rough shod over it this is a great thing. I firmly believe that in terms of long term effects, a SC majority is FAR more important than any president. Now the wait for the choice of Justice begins. If it is anywhere in the vicinity of Gorsuch I will be very happy.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 28, 2018 17:52:08 GMT -5
"Elections have consequences" - Barack Obama
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 19:31:41 GMT -5
The SC should not have that much power. Per the Constitution it shouldn't. I can't remember when that changed. Need to dig it up. I don't like Dem's or Rep's, I'm a Federalist Party active member. So you know where I stand.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Jun 28, 2018 19:49:31 GMT -5
The SC should not have that much power. Per the Constitution it shouldn't. I can't remember when that changed. Need to dig it up. I don't like Dem's or Rep's, I'm a Federalist Party active member. So you know where I stand. You are a fan of federal government controlling what individual states can do and the citizens within it? 😳😳😳😳
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 20:24:26 GMT -5
The SC should not have that much power. Per the Constitution it shouldn't. I can't remember when that changed. Need to dig it up. I don't like Dem's or Rep's, I'm a Federalist Party active member. So you know where I stand. You are a fan of federal government controlling what individual states can do and the citizens within it? 😳😳😳😳 The less powerful the central government is the better, power to the states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 20:29:36 GMT -5
The SC should not have that much power. Per the Constitution it shouldn't. I can't remember when that changed. Need to dig it up. I don't like Dem's or Rep's, I'm a Federalist Party active member. So you know where I stand. You are a fan of federal government controlling what individual states can do and the citizens within it? 😳😳😳😳 <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="5.180000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 18.720000000000027px; height: 5.180000000000007px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_95267540" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="5.180000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 5.18px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_71060312" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="5.180000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 5.18px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 197px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_23868543" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="5.180000000000007" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 5.18px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: 197px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_695902" scrolling="no"></iframe> No way, just the opposite. I'm for following: the federalist papers, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. All three are very important to stop the Democracy Tyranny we live in. We are not close to a Republic. The Constitution is based from the Federalist Papers. There should be no Federal Government. Each State has it's military and each year a military convention to discuss the strength needed to protect all states. Who covers what and to what degree. Nothing else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 20:41:13 GMT -5
Everyone should read the Federalist papers, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 20:45:19 GMT -5
Here is a little bit how we have a Supreme Court. Per the Constitution there is not Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is principally occupied in a task that has no basis in the Constitution. The nine justices spend their time judging what is constitutional and what isn’t through a process known as judicial review. However, when the delegates of the thirteen original States drafted the Constitution they decided after much debate not to delegate such a power to the judicial branch or any other branch of the new Federal Government.
If the Constitution doesn’t give this power to the Court how did they get it? The surprising answer is that they assumed it unto themselves, and since no one stopped them they just kept doing it. The process began in 1794 when for the First time they declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. Then in 1803 they used a minor case Marbury v Madison to outline their justification for the process.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Jun 28, 2018 21:01:58 GMT -5
Why would a group that’s anti feds call themselves the Federalist Party? That’s like me saying I am a RosieO’donnellist when can’t stand the woman.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jun 29, 2018 6:16:47 GMT -5
In a perfect world, all Justices would be centrist, impartial, and non -political. However this is not the case. Unfortunately the modern Supreme Court is very predictable based on political persuasion.
I don't like to see either side appoint extremists.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jun 29, 2018 6:18:49 GMT -5
In a perfect world, all Justices would be centrist, impartial, and non -political. However this is not the case. Unfortunately the modern Supreme Court is very predictable based on political persuasion.
I don't like to see either side appoint extremists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 7:04:06 GMT -5
In a perfect world, all Justices would be centrist, impartial, and non -political. However this is not the case. Unfortunately the modern Supreme Court is very predictable based on political persuasion. I don't like to see either side appoint extremists. I dont like extremists either, but in the past we have had justices interpret the constitution like a piece of poetry, instead of a law. And basically create new legislation, which is not their job.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jun 29, 2018 8:20:03 GMT -5
Agreed
|
|