|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 20, 2011 15:07:50 GMT -5
I bet good money on Possibility 1, Askold. The Republicans at the current time are all evil fascists who will make the USA fascist as soon as they get the chance. I think a few members on this forum would love to disagree with that particular word there, brendan.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Dec 20, 2011 15:15:29 GMT -5
Never use absolutes. And eschew obfuscation.
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Dec 20, 2011 22:46:34 GMT -5
So does mean that he's going to have Scalia & Thomas arrested...those are two of the biggest "activist judges" around...
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 21, 2011 4:42:32 GMT -5
It's only judicial activism when you disagree with the ruling. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the constitution actually says.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Dec 21, 2011 5:36:07 GMT -5
How the fuck is a man who threatens partial coups (disable constitutional bodies via force) still a viable candidate for many?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 21, 2011 6:10:04 GMT -5
So when judges are out of touch, arrest them, but when politicians are out of touch... nominate them for President?
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 21, 2011 6:14:15 GMT -5
Pretty much that.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 21, 2011 9:14:48 GMT -5
How the fuck is a man who threatens partial coups (disable constitutional bodies via force) still a viable candidate for many? Because, like the North Koreans who worship the descendents of Kim Il-sung, the Republican leadership have brainwashed the dumbest section of the population to follow them absolutely. The Tea Partiers would most likely sign their own death warrants if a Republican told them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by caseagainstfaith on Dec 21, 2011 12:49:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 21, 2011 13:00:50 GMT -5
Never use absolutes. And eschew obfuscation. Indeed, one should always eschew sesquipedalian verbiage and redundancy, which tend to obscure the message one is attempting to communicate, which in this case is that long sentences and big words confuse people.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Dec 21, 2011 13:20:31 GMT -5
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you and what army Mr. Paul? "Ohh I'm the President now, I control the courts" SEPERATION OF POWERS MOTHERFUCKER! BLAMO. Rejected, thrashed, go meet up with Romney and have a go on his trampoline.
damnmit, where's Bitch Pudding when you need her?
|
|
|
Post by askold on Dec 21, 2011 14:50:49 GMT -5
I don't really understand why you all seem to panic over this. After all a comment like that should destroy their chances of being elected.
I mean, what kind of moron would vote for a candidate who announces that he does not respect the laws of his country and will use scare tactics and unconstitutional means to further his cause.
Oh right, USA...
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 21, 2011 15:08:10 GMT -5
There is a highly contentious debate about whether or not Congress has the power to engage in "court stripping:" the ability of Congress by law to make certain subject matters off-limits to the judiciary. The Constitution says:
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. [...]
and
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.
Congress clearly has the right to limit the appellate subject matter of the Supreme Court and can never limit its original jurisdiction. Some say that because Congress creates all of the lower courts, they also have the right to limit the subject matter (both original and appellate) for all the courts they create. This has been largely untested, and in my opinion is ludicrous (Congress could include a sentence in every single law they pass saying no court has jurisdiction to challenge it, thus rendering the judicial branch useless).
The Constitution also says:
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; [blue]between a State and Citizens of another State[/blue]; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [blue]and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.[/blue] (The text in blue was removed by Amendment XI.)
So if the judicial power "shall be" ("shall" indicates a command) vested in the Supreme Court and lower courts that Congress makes, and the "judicial power" is defined as all those subject matters listed above, it seems like Congress has no choice but to vest that power **somewhere**: if not with the Supreme Court, then with some lower Article III court. A challenge regarding abortion, same-sex, marriage, and religion would all fall under the category of "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 21, 2011 15:44:10 GMT -5
What I find astonishing about Newt's craziness here is that it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the branches of the US government even work. Since he WAS Speaker of the House for a while, I can only assume that he is deliberately talking out of his ass to score points with the ignorant mob.
I mean, come on. He's basically advocating disabling a major factor of the US system of checks and balances. Isn't that.......un-American?
|
|
|
Post by caseagainstfaith on Dec 21, 2011 16:07:13 GMT -5
I mean, come on. He's basically advocating disabling a major factor of the US system of checks and balances. Isn't that....... un-American?When has the republicans ever been for something you could consider "American"? (getting dragged into something kicking and screaming doesn't count)
|
|