[tomder55]

Or any judge who thinks your gun rights mean that the individual states can form a National Guard. If your elected officials decide that ;you have the remedy of going to court. If the judge decides that and imposes the remedy that guns should be confiscated what would you do ? Where is the remedy when that judge imposes that ?

[excon]

or any judge who thinks your gun rights mean that the individual states can form a National Guard.

Hello tom:

If you want to criticize the process, at least tell the truth about the process. There's 39 judges who'll consider it. That's the trial judge, the 29 judges in the 9th Circuit Appellate Division, and the 9 Supreme Court Justices.. That's quite a bit different than your characterization of "any" judge.

These are JUDGES who have appointments for LIFE and are NOT subject to political whim and fancy... YOU, on the other hand, want to hand over Constitutional authority to congress or the president, who are ABSOLUTELY subject to political whim.

You think it's BETTER to give politicians that power instead of judges.. I can't imagine HOW you think that will PRESERVE ANY RIGHTS - and I mean ANY. Of course, the only one you care about is the 2nd.. Maybe you HATE the others so much you're willing to sacrifice the one you do like.

You certainly have to know that the Gingrich proposition will END the Bill of Rights - ALL of 'em!

excon

[tomder55]

You are the one who brought up the 2nd. Me , I say there was a single judge or a handful of them in SCOTUS that decided a Texas law was unconstitutional ,and imposed a national remedy, that led to the genocide of 50 million + babies that continues today .

[tomder55]

You certainly have to know that the Gingrich proposition will END the Bill of Rights - ALL of 'em!

As far as I can tell ,every suggestion by Newt is a Constitutional remedy to rogue judges and their decisions. Tell me the one that isn't .

[speechlesstx]

By the way ex, I watched that debate and when Ron Paul spoke I could have sworn it was you. Are you really Ron Paul?

[tomder55]

BTW Watch Iowa . The Ronulans are going to be bused in from out of state and infiltrate the caucuses... just like the Obots did in all the 2008 caucus states (at least according to the claim by the Clintoon campaign) .

[excon]

every suggestion by Newt is a Constitutional remedy to rogue judges and their decisions. Tell me the one that isn't .

Hello again, Steve:

From YOUR viewpoint, Citizens United... Why?? Because you AGREE with it... From mine, it was rogue judges at their finest...

Let me ask you this.. If Obama DID what Newt says he can do, and he decides to gather up your guns, because he doesn't like what some "rogue" judge did, are you going to lay back, or are you going to be screaming about your Constitutional rights?

You don't have to answer. What is it about this that is SOOOOO hard to get? YOU too have an investment in the Bill of Rights.

excon

[tomder55]

I have long asseted that judges have way too much power. I don't care who the President we are talking about . The President is accountable to the people and to Congress ;and to the courts . The courts are accountable to no one. Therein lies the real threat to liberty.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

You mean tom, 3rd place guy.

[excon]

Therein lies the real threat to liberty.

Hello again, tom:

I cannot disagree more forcefully. What you advocate will DESTROY the Bill of Rights. You haven't denied it. In fact, it looks like that's your goal.

THAT is the REAL threat to liberty.

excon

[excon]

You mean tom, 3rd place guy.

Hello Steve:

I DO?? You guys look too much alike.

Yes, I'm Ron Paul.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Yes, I'm Ron Paul.

excon

I thought so.

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

I cannot disagree more forcefully. What you advocate will DESTROY the Bill of Rights. You haven't denied it. In fact, it looks like that's your goal.

THAT is the REAL threat to liberty.

excon

Nonsense. The Bill of rights, if anything ,get watered down by judicial decisions . Let me wear your shoes for a minute. The Courts consistently confirmed the Patriot Act and did not overturn any of it despite the claim you make of it's eroding of your 4th amendment rights . So which branch from your view was the greater threat ? Congress can change majorities and scrap whole legislations with a vote. The Courts lock them in stone ,or reject them ,regardless of the will of the people .

I'll say it again. The Bill of Rights came about only because of the amendment process... which meant they were voted on by the elected representatives of the people .They did not happpen because of some judges decree. And that's the way it is.

I still ask .Which one of Newt's suggestions are unconstitutional... answer... none.. We just have had very few Presidents willing to exercise their constitutional checks over the courts .

[excon]

Which one of Newt's suggestions are unconstitutional ... answer ...none .. We just have had very few Presidents willing to exercise their constitutional checks over the courts .

Hello again, tom:

You forced me to read the Constitution again. Boy, that's a cool read.. But, I'm having trouble finding the part that says the president has a constitutional check over the courts..

I'm sure you can direct me.

excon

[tomder55]

1. Tell me where in the Constitution does it say that the President has to enforce Court decisions . As an example ;Lincoln absolutely refused to enforce the provisions of the Dred Scott decision.
Here is what he said about the case:

[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Example 2 Roosevelt decided to have a tribunal for German saboteures .
He said this :

They will be tried in a military court, they will be executed, it should happen within three weeks, and tell the Supreme Court if they issue a writ of habeas corpus, I will not honor it, and therefore they should not issue it. I am the commander in chief in wartime. They aren't.

So there are 2 distinct examples where the President using inherent Article 2 powers as chief law enforcement officer and Commander in Chief disregarded the rulings of the court .

2. I am puzzled . You don't get that the court is but a coequal branch with the executive and legislature and that if the executive and legislature teamed up that they have remedies against the imperial judiciary?

Ok here is another example . John Adams packed the court full of Federalist judges before he surrendered the Presidency to Jefferson... When Jefferson came in he couldn't overturn the appointments ;so he abolished the judicial seats they were appointed to. Again... perfectly constitutional.

With Congress he can begin impeachments of individual judges ,and remove whole districts if they choose to do so.(Article III, section 2, clause 2 ) Only the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated..

Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That means legislation can provide that the federal courts would have no jurisdiction, for example, to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Congress has the authority to subpoena judges to explain their decisions . Congress can defund any court it choses except SCOTUS .
That's just a start the top of my head. So yes ;the elected bodies through their checks and balances can limit the power of the judiciary if they choose to do so.

[excon]

Tell me where in the Constitution does it say that the President has to enforce Court decisions???

Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That means legislation can provide that the federal courts would have no jurisdiction, for example, to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Congress has the authority to subpoena judges to explain their decisions . Congress can defund any court it choses except SCOTUS .

Hello again, tom:

It's SPIN except for the last sentence.

For a moment, though, let's assume congress DID abolish all other courts EXCEPT the Supreme Court. Article 3, Section 2, speaking of the power of the court, says "The judicial power shall extend to ALL cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...."

If the Supreme Court was the only one left, it would STILL be constitutionally bound to hear the same cases a lower court would, IF there WERE a lower court. Constitutionally, congress can't limit their agenda. Plus, the Constitution doesn't give congress ANY power to subpoena judges. Where does it say that?? You made that up..

Specifically, congress, pursuant to Article 3, Section 1, speaking of the inferior courts, "...MAY from time to time ordain and establish." It say's NOTHING about their ability to interfere or subpoena.. It MAY establish, and it MAY DIS-establish. That's it. Everything else, is made up.

So, even if there were ONLY the Supreme Court, congress could NOT prevent it from hearing cases that involve the laws of the land, and that would INCLUDE DOMA.

Finally, your first question... It doesn't SAY the president has to enforce court decisions.. It only ESTABLISHES the court. But, I find it incredulous to the max to believe the authors of Constitution set up a CO-EQUAL branch of government that nobody had to obey.

You're way off base in your constitutional law.

excon

[tomder55]

Constitutionally, congress can't limit their agenda. Plus, the Constitution doesn't give congress ANY power to subpoena judges. Where does it say that?? You made that up..

I disagree . The Senate can call all the appointees it confirms through advice and consent . Do you think Judges are somehow members of some super branch above all accounting ? Now there is a good case that could be argued that individual Associate Justices of SCOTUS couldn't be ; or that if it happened could create a constitutional crisis... but that protection certainly ends with the lower courts .
Whether that would be a good political move is a different question . The subpoena power is an inherent power of Congress ;part of the legitimate function of their work and to claim judges are immune creates a superior unequal branch .

I am tired of this image of judges as some kind of ritualistic secular priesthood who's decrees are beyond question . Almost all of them are political patronage appointees who climbed up the ranks from slip and fall status . A good share of them are lazy incompetent and autocratic who often rarely see the inside pages of a briefing book;and even less often do their own independent research. . I don't understand why you would put such faith in them. Most of them are rubber stamps of the local prosecutor . For this effort they are granted greater job security than a tenued teacher ? Give me a break!

As to the Executive's power to ignore court decisions ;that is established by history and confirming judicial precedence . The only way the judges could force the executive to comply would be through the cooperation of Congress and the impeachment process .

Now Newt will not get anywhere with this stand ;but he has brought up a very important issue that the nation should address. If we want and are comfortable with an imperial judiciary then the Constitution should be amended to grant them this power.
The country lasted 20 years before Chief Justice Marshall imposed this system on us and survived .It would've done just as well without Marbury v Madison and probably a lot better .

[excon]

The subpoena power is an inherent power of Congress ;part of the legitimate function of their work and to claim judges are immune creates a superior unequal branch .

I don't understand why you would put such faith in them.

Hello again, tom:

Couple things.. The courts have subpoena power too. Would you like to see a pissing match between the courts and congress? They're a CO-EQUAL branch. I don't think they'll lay down for congress. I surly wouldn't.

Secondarily, I DON'T put my faith in judges, but if the alternative is to put my faith in politicians, I'll stick with judges.

excon

[tomder55]

I don't think it's either or . The best is to have the least necessary to protect liberty and preserve civil society.

[paraclete]

Yes Tom that equals vigilantes roaming the streets