Jump to content

The "Supremes"


GWBH

Recommended Posts

Joanna Ruth Martin is one of the most incisive, sagacious commentators of American law and jurisprudence in the history of this country. If you've ever seen her debate a legal or legislative point, or speak on those subjects, you would be blown away at her insight and unimpeachable rhetoric. She makes Trey Gowdy look like an uninformed school kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The “common law” applied in courts in the English-speaking countries came from the Bible.7

 

No. Common law is courts legislating from the bench when there is no statute that covers the situation. Some came from judge's religious beliefs, some came from their political beliefs. It is still legislating from the bench.

 

After I read this, I knew the author of this article has no clue what they're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If the President, in the exercise of his independent judgment and mindful of his Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, determines that an opinion of a federal court is unconstitutional; his Duty is to refuse to enforce it. The President is also competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution!Refusing to enforce their unconstitutional judgments is his “check” on the Judicial Branch.

 

So when Obama refused to enforce DOMA, that was OK. I'm sure this author would have disagreed with that decision.

 

Interesting idea. Basically speaking, the author is saying that every 4-8 years the Constitution changes due to which party holds the presidency.

 

So help me to understand this guy's reasoning. The Judiciary, a creature of the Constitution has no power to change the Constitution. But the author then goes and says that the Executive Branch, a creature of the Constitution, can change the Constitution through non-enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say Hillary became president instead of Trump and appointed two or three justices to the SCOTUS. Let's say they take a case about guns and in the end predictably rule that the people have no right to keep an bear arms. Is that the "law of the land" or does the actual text and meaning of the Constitution still apply? Remember, the SCOTUS just ruled that you have no right to keep and bear arms and there is no higher court you can appeal to. It's the final word on the matter as far as the government is concerned.

 

Do we turn in our guns or not?

 

I'm guessing most of us would continue to follow the actual Constitution and treat it as the supreme law of the land as it was meant to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say Hillary became president instead of Trump and appointed two or three justices to the SCOTUS. Let's say they take a case about guns and in the end predictably rule that the people have no right to keep an bear arms. Is that the "law of the land" or does the actual text and meaning of the Constitution still apply? Remember, the SCOTUS just ruled that you have no right to keep and bear arms and there is no higher court you can appeal to. It's the final word on the matter as far as the government is concerned.

 

Do we turn in our guns or not?

 

I'm guessing most of us would continue to follow the actual Constitution and treat it as the supreme law of the land as it was meant to be.

No. Now if the .gov wishes to buy them from me for a price >= to what I paid for them I'll consider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they wanted to buy them from me, it would have to be a price that I thought was fair.

 

Ten million dollars per gun and $1000 per round of ammo and I might be convinced.

 

They'll take it under eminent domain and pay crap prices. Then you sue and after paying huge lawyer fees and court costs you may get market prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we turn in our guns or not?

 

If they knocked on my door, I would ask them if it their intention (and desire) to persue this unConstitutional action. If they answer in the affirmative, I would have no regrets in giving them every round of ammunition I possess AND as quickly as I can. After all, as G. Gordon Liddy used to say in his radio talk show, "Body armor doesn't cover everything."

 

If they merely forced their way in, they would be treated like any other "home invasion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do we turn in our guns or not?

 

If they knocked on my door, I would ask them if it their intention (and desire) to persue this unConstitutional action. If they answer in the affirmative, I would have no regrets in giving them every round of ammunition I possess AND as quickly as I can. After all, as G. Gordon Liddy used to say in his radio talk show, "Body armor doesn't cover everything."

 

If they merely forced their way in, they would be treated like any other "home invasion".

 

I've always wondered about "the officer identified themselves as a police woman / man".

So what - anyone can do that? doesn't make it true...

Don't people impersonate LE to commit crimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...