Conservatives Forum.com The #1 Conservatives Forum on Google.com
Conservative News and Discussion Forum. Home of the Sisterhood Of the Sacred Skillet of Justice.
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Page 2 - Page 3 - CF Forums - Conservative News Source - Newsmax TV
Constitutional Issues - Candidates Action - Economy - Talk Radio Conservative News - Conservatives Directory
Sports - Health - Poetry - Entertainment - Cook, Crafts - Activists Forum - Conservative Activist - CF Chat
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority? (Read 7,185 times)
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #10 - 08/06/12 at 10:37:16
Print Post  
[quote author=Trip link=1342107485/0#6 date=1344228955]


We don't need to define what a person is as the law has done that itself. If corporations are able to be sued, and their money taxed, and their industry legislated, even with the open intent of driving that industry out of business, then those corporations have the right to represent themselves.  And Congress has no business defining what is a religion, even though there be some that are not bona fide religions.



[/quote]

The "law's" definition of person is limited to the corporation/person debate, in regards to campaign financing.

The ongoing abortion rights debate needs further definition to clarify the right to life of the unborn.

I don't claim that the congress has a right to define religion.  I do say that interpreting and defining the constitution in all of its wording [u]is[/u] the responsibility of SCOTUS.  Whether or not its rule is respected by the congress is another thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #11 - 08/06/12 at 13:19:09
Print Post  
Trip wrote on 08/05/12 at 10:35:01:
I

Right now we have the "servants", our legislators and judiciary, declaring themselves above "the master", the people.

The overall effect of Story's and Robert's perspective is we are no longer a Republic, no longer have any guaranteed rights, and are subject to the whim of the majority, or even the will of the minority legislative elite.... and the Constitution itself becomes meaningless.  




On the contrary, Roberts was saying that,  We (the court) do not have the power to order the congress, but you (the people) do and must.  That is your remedy.
How can a clear assignment of power to the people be interpreted as making the people powerless?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #12 - 08/06/12 at 13:43:47
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/06/12 at 10:25:08:
... , Story is correct in his opinion that only the Congress can correct a mistake that the Congress has made.


Okay, that's reasonable, and not any great reach.   Congress is "speeding", exceeding  its limits, so Congress is told to "stop speeding".  What the Congress and the government are doing is not supported  by the Constitution,


Picker wrote on 08/06/12 at 10:25:08:
In the case of the health care mandate, that would still be true regardless of which way the court came down.


.. except it really was not a coin toss that could (should) go either way.   Fundamentally this is an issue that is prohibited to Congress by the constitution because we have innate "ownership" of our bodies. For there to be any freedom in this country at all,  that freedom stems from ownership of our bodies, and then every other freedom stems from our bodies (selves)  acting upon what is around us: freedom of speech, freedom of creation and writing, and ownership of what we acquire with our actions.

Government believes it owns us, being able to declare our relative worth and what care and maintenance we might be entitled to, or denied.  It has denied us due process is pronouncing us guilty of not having (acceptable) insurance, and has granted itself access to our personal papers and effects, which are protected by the 4th Amendment, ultimately gutting 70% of the Bill of Rights.

Most Americans don't even understand the significance of the question regarding it being a "penalty" or "a tax".   The fundamental reason the Democratic Congress avoided calling it a penalty is that it runs against the outright prohibition in Article 1, Section 9, "Limits On Congress":

  • No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.


A Bill of Attainder is "a taking" of property and/or rights, done by legislation, in which Congress assumes  the authority of the Judiciary, not only pronouncing some group "guilty", but also usurping the judicial authority, and pronouncing the penalty for that guilt -- which is fundamentally tyrannous.  

In the case of O-Care, that "taking"  involves not only the innate ownership of our own bodies, and a fine, but also that nullified 70% of the Bill of Rights, inclusive of due process. This is inherently tyrannous conduct involving government becoming an active entity in choosing "winners and losers" and dictating to society while robbing our freedoms.  Andrew McCarthy  addresses "winners and losers" in his article "Empty Promise":

  • For the Founders, government did not have an “agenda.” It was not an independent entity, a player in the game that has its own interests and, therefore, the right to compete with the other players — the people — in a battle over whose interests should rule the day. Government was just a “form,” a neutral framework through which free people pursued their “safety and happiness,” with a guarantee only that the pursuit would not be unfairly impeded, not a guarantee against failure.

    Government got an “agenda” thanks to the establishment of the welfare state. And there are no neutral agendas. Unavoidably, an agenda means elevating some interests at the expense of others. Moreover, given that government has no personal assets, favoring some citizens at the expense of others necessarily implies the redistribution of wealth. Inevitably, having an “agenda of government” involves the state choosing winners and losers.


Originally the distinction between a "tax" and a "penalty" would not matter, as both considerations resulted in the same conclusion: unconstitutional.  However over time government has granted itself, by machinations and rationalizations, progressively intrusive taxation authority, which led to my reference to "NULLIFICATION" in my first
« Last Edit: 08/06/12 at 16:35:09 by Trip »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #13 - 08/06/12 at 13:58:33
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/06/12 at 13:19:09:
On the contrary, Roberts was saying that,  We (the court) do not have the power to order the congress, but you (the people) do and must.  That is your remedy.
How can a clear assignment of power to the people be interpreted as making the people powerless?


In one post you indicate that "... interpreting and defining the constitution in all of its wording is the responsibility of SCOTUS" and in the very next post, (quoted above), you indicate that SCOTUS does not have the authority to "order" Congress.

Perhaps SCOTUS does not have the authority to "order" Congress, but it does have the authority, and even sworn obligation, to pronounce such violative legislation as unconstitutional, null and void at face value (which my initial post addressed).

And this obligation of the Court is what Roberts was denying, in an overt attempt to falsely validate the actions of intrusive government when it is inherently invalid.


My reason for responding to this thread is that, within the constraints and duties established by the Constitution, there really is no means to legitimize Roberts' statements and conclusion.  It is blatantly corrupt, which has led to speculations of Roberts being threatened or coerced in some manner.


  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #14 - 08/06/12 at 14:01:52
Print Post  
The people have the power, through their legislative bodies, to establish binding law.  But, sadly, they have found a way to voluntarily transfer power from themselves to the government.  They sell it.
The government, which like all authorities inevitably try to increase the reach of their power, by offering inducements.  The people of the states, mistakenly thinking that it will cost them less, gladly hand power to the government in exchange for federal funding of favorite projects and programs.
Those of us, who are old enough to remember a time when accepting government assistance was an admission of failure, are not inclined to blame the government for its natural behavior, but place it where it rightfully belongs, on the people.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #15 - 08/06/12 at 14:06:03
Print Post  
Trip wrote on 08/06/12 at 13:58:33:
In one post you indicate that "... interpreting and defining the constitution in all of its wording is the responsibility of SCOTUS" and in the very next post, (quoted above), you indicate that SCOTUS does not have the authority to "order" Congress.

Perhaps SCOTUS does not have the authority to "order" Congress, but it does have the authority, and even sworn obligation, to pronounce such violative legislation as unconstitutional, null and void at face value (which my initial post addressed).

And this obligation of the Court is what Roberts was denying, in an overt attempt to falsely validate the actions of intrusive government when it is inherently invalid.


My reason for responding to this thread is that, within the constraints and duties established by the Constitution, there really is no means to legitimize Roberts' statements and conclusion.  It is blatantly corrupt, which has led to speculations of Roberts being threatened or coerced in some manner.




If four Justices agree with Roberts, should they, then, be suspected of bowing to improper pressure?  I leave the field, now, thanking you for a good exchange.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #16 - 08/06/12 at 14:58:04
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/06/12 at 14:01:52:
The people have the power, through their legislative bodies, to establish binding law.  But, sadly, they have found a way to voluntarily transfer power from themselves to the government.  They sell it.
The government, which like all authorities inevitably try to increase the reach of their power, by offering inducements.  The people of the states, mistakenly thinking that it will cost them less, gladly hand power to the government in exchange for federal funding of favorite projects and programs.
Those of us, who are old enough to remember a time when accepting government assistance was an admission of failure, are not inclined to blame the government for its natural behavior, but place it where it rightfully belongs, on the people.



You act as if the government is inherently valid, and beyond blame in all that has transpired. I believe that to be a gross oversight denying both fact and history, wrongfully affording government an inherent validity contrary to the principles upon which this country is founded.

That "binding law" is neither binding, nor law, if it is not pursuant to the Constitution and "proper" within the terms and limitations set forth by that document, as indicated in my initial post of this thread.

"The people" do not have the authority nor ability by their collective will to abrogate or negate the terms of the Constitution, and certainly not by legislation alone. We are, by deliberate intent and specific construct of the Constitution itself, not any sort of democracy.  

Our rights are not just "unalienable" by theory, but in reality with regard to that legislation.   Those rights are unable to be taken or even willfully given up. This is where Roberts comments are profoundly and disturbingly wrong, especially for someone on the bench.

Picker wrote on 08/06/12 at 14:06:03:
If four Justices agree with Roberts, should they, then, be suspected of bowing to improper pressure?  I leave the field, now, thanking you for a good exchange.


First, my comment regarding Roberts being subject to coercion was specifically "speculation" and was really an 'aside' intending no specific assertion.

However, regarding those other four Justices, I previously indicated that  "they have each in their own way indicated their adamant determination to dismiss the Constitution."   Sotomayor and Kagan have both openly indicated their support of, and intent to engage in, "social justice", which allows these members to disregard the equal application of the rule of law, and subjectively apply their own value system in disregard of the Constitution.  Both Sotomayor and Kagan should have been prohibited from being on the Court by these statements alone, and neither is entitled to be there given their de facto appointment by a known  invalid Oval Occupant (this for another discussion).

Ginsberg has repeatedly spoken out about her intent to alter the meaning of "natural born" to apply to her grandson. Ginsberg has also indicated that the U.S. Constitution is inferior to other more recent democratic constitutions, which are quite lengthy in their indications of what government can and must do "for" the people.  Breyers is another case, who is less public in his statement, but whose judicial history speaks for his disregard of the Constitution itself.  

These people consistently fabricate government authority which nowhere exists in the Constitution, and was specifically prohibited to the government by that document.  

It is irrelevant if they were bowing to improper "pressure"; they are consistently applying improper, fabricated  and invalid rationale.

Does the Constitution compel us to accept the judgment of the Court, no matter how corrupt it might be, in disregard of the Constitution itself? That video "Nullification: the Rightful Remedy" indicates otherwise
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #17 - 08/06/12 at 15:04:12
Print Post  

Picker....

While you have indicated you are now "leaving the field". allow me to tempt you with a seemingly simple question:

"Can the Constitution itself be unconstitutional?"

While this question, at first glance, seems sophomoric and jejune, I assure you there is more substance to it than you might imagine.

  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #18 - 08/07/12 at 23:33:23
Print Post  
Trip wrote on 08/06/12 at 15:04:12:
Picker....

While you have indicated you are now "leaving the field". allow me to tempt you with a seemingly simple question:

"Can the Constitution itself be unconstitutional?"

While this question, at first glance, seems sophomoric and jejune, I assure you there is more substance to it than you might imagine.


Not unless it contains self-contradiction.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #19 - 08/08/12 at 00:36:55
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/07/12 at 23:33:23:
Not unless it contains self-contradiction.


So if they change the Constitution and it violates the principle of the constitution prior to that, it's still okay?

What about something like the 18th Amendment and Prohibition of alcohol?

The Constitution was never intended to give us rights,  but to constitute (create) the fiction that is the federal government and provide its legitimate authority and limitations.  Even the 9th Amendment recognizing individual rights that are not enumerated, and the 10th Amendment recognizing the existence of states  powers, are not themselves grants of rights.

So what is the Constitution doing telling us citizens cannot drink alcohol, when the purpose of the document is to create and limit government, and not the people themselves?

This can be expanded further to question things such as the ability to direct individual income tax, or the 17th Amendment allowing the election of senators by popular vote rather than the state legislatures  themselves.   Now Senators no longer are accountable to the states themselves, and cannot be subject to recall on the state's terms. And yet treaties can still be ratified solely by the Senate itself, which no longer has anywhere close to the degree of accountability to the states for those treaties.  As a result the Senate has become a rogue body with longer terms than the house and very little real accountability.

Given that Senators serve for terms that are three times the length  of the Representatives, without real accountability,  it is no small wonder that the rogue body evidencing the least regard for the rights and property of the citizens is the U.S. Senate.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?


ConservativesForum.com
CF Forums
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Constitutional Issues - Political Polls - Candidates Action - Economy
Conservative News Sources Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin forums
Political Activism, Strategy, Blogs - Conservative Sites - Games - Sports - Health - Poetry - Cooking - Library
Gun Rights - Conspiracy Theories - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5


Conservatives Directory
conservative sites:
Daily Caller
Newsmax
Drudge Report
Sean Hannity Show
Rush Limbaugh
The American Thinker
Breitbart News
FrontPage Magazine
Right Bias
Rasmussen Reports
David Limbaugh
American Conservative Union
Accuracy in Media
News Busters
Newt Gingrich
Chicks on the Right
Mark Levin Show
Tea Party Patriots
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative News
TruthUSA
Michelle Malkin
Right Wing News
Accuracy in Academia
Hotair
Powerline Blog
Conservative News Source
Conservative Activist

Conservative Blogs
Proudvet's Blog
Opinion Editorials
Political Polls
Twitter CF
Conservatives Directory Add Your Site
Conservative Blog Advertising
Forum Rules, User Agreement and Privacy Policy
Registering Information and Forum Rules