GWBH Posted November 27, 2018 at 10:18 PM Posted November 27, 2018 at 10:18 PM Pretty interesting reading... Are SCOTUS decisions the "Law of the Land"? https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2018/11/25/why-supreme-court-opinions-are-not-the-law-of-the-land-and-how-to-put-federal-judges-in-their-place/
lockman Posted November 27, 2018 at 11:25 PM Posted November 27, 2018 at 11:25 PM I have not yet read the article yet, but those decisions are the law of the land until such time by legislative act congress states otherwise. Congress can if passed into law reverse a SCOTUS decision. They can also by legislative act remove the jurisdiction of SCOTUS to revisit the issue at hand.
TomKoz Posted November 28, 2018 at 02:13 AM Posted November 28, 2018 at 02:13 AM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lxny2KMd0TI
Mr. Fife Posted November 28, 2018 at 05:54 AM Posted November 28, 2018 at 05:54 AM I prefer the Ronettes. Just like Ronnie says... https://youtu.be/72bPue3wC5A
ChicagoRonin70 Posted November 28, 2018 at 06:00 AM Posted November 28, 2018 at 06:00 AM 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.
TomKoz Posted November 28, 2018 at 06:24 AM Posted November 28, 2018 at 06:24 AM I prefer the Ronettes. Just like Ronnie says... https://youtu.be/72bPue3wC5AOk. You Win. I forgot about Sha Na Na ... memories
BobPistol Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:08 PM Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:08 PM Supreme Court Opinions are not “the Law of the Land” Their opinions are of what the constitution says - their interpretation of the Constitution. Basically, they're saying that Marbury vs Madison is a decoration.
Sweeper13 Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:10 PM Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:10 PM Mark levin has been saying this for a long time. Scotus is not the final word. Congress has gave up there responsibility and looks to the courts to do its job.
BobPistol Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:13 PM Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:13 PM 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.
BobPistol Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:21 PM Posted November 28, 2018 at 01:21 PM 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.
Bitter Clinger Posted November 28, 2018 at 07:50 PM Posted November 28, 2018 at 07:50 PM 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.
BigJim Posted November 29, 2018 at 05:45 PM Posted November 29, 2018 at 05:45 PM 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.
Bitter Clinger Posted November 30, 2018 at 03:59 PM Posted November 30, 2018 at 03:59 PM 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.
BobPistol Posted December 1, 2018 at 01:38 AM Posted December 1, 2018 at 01:38 AM 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.
JTHunter Posted December 1, 2018 at 05:25 AM Posted December 1, 2018 at 05:25 AM 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".
GWBH Posted December 3, 2018 at 01:00 AM Author Posted December 3, 2018 at 01:00 AM 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?
JTHunter Posted December 3, 2018 at 04:29 AM Posted December 3, 2018 at 04:29 AM 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? They do. And, in the dark of night, in dark clothing, anything is possible.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.