Interesting.....

Supreme Court Update

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:08PM, voice-crying wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:58PM, Bodean wrote:

It's all wishful thinking Voice .... all wishful thinking.

The Justices have the responsibility to uphold the constitutionality of any law passed by congress.

They are doing their job. .. even if Obama doesn't like it.

I want them to do their job.

I figure...if I can read the constitution and not see
a violation...I wonder what they are looking at!!!

Though you say you've read the Constitution FOR the United States of America, you seem to lack a degree of understanding of it's true purpose and intent, clarified a great deal by the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and the 9th/10th Amendments, e.g.:

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
-- Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006) American minister, author

Both the Commerce and the "Necessary and Proper" clauses were INTENDED to refer ONLY to the SPECIFIC and FEW named powers which were delegated by the State governments to the general government.

Show me the word "health" or any clause whatsoever which mentions the People directly; it was ruled long ago that the Constitution is a compact between the States and the General government, and the USG has ZERO business interfering in the life of any individual save indirectly, via the cooperation of the State of residency.

That said, SCOTUS/Congress/the Executive have consistently and repeatedly(and criminally) extended the meaning and scope of both the words "general welfare" as well as the Commerce clause, but they have done so Unconstitutionally---which renders all such "rulings" or "acts" or "orders" invalid and void ab initio, for any and every Unconstitutional arrogation of powers not delegated is simply usurpation, or ASSUMPTION of powers-not-delegated, with the underlying assumption that NO ONE will dare to argue with them thrice-damned attorneys---or their jack-booted enforcement thugs...

Remember always and never forget: the Constitution as originally written and submitted for ratification was failing badly in most of the States, and would have been rejected---UNTIL the bill of rights, with it's crucial wording in the the Preamble thereto(i.e., "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of it's powers...") was appended.

Well, ol' Patrick Henry had it right: "impeachment" is a sham/joke, and the whole gang of them will be in collusion to steal our liberty by ambush.

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman

Apr 10, 2012 -- 3:03AM, Hatman wrote:

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights." -- Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006)- Hatman

It is for this reason that Leftists HATE the US Constitution, including the Leftists Justices who serve on the SCOTUS. [aka Ginsberg being prime among them]

Leftist want a constitution that gives the Central Government unlimited power to "implement their leftists ideology".  They don't want a constitution that "prohibits" .. they want a constitution that "allows".

Not suprising, in all of the examples in the Forbes Article posted by VC ... the rulings were made by the activists judges put their by FDR.  Those judges were specifically put on the court to rubber stamp anything FDR wanted.  Hence, they "ssssttttrrrrreeeeettttcccchhhh" the interpretaiton of the commerce clause such that Leftists Goverment Oppression can take place.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 9:49AM, drawout wrote:

How come no leftists ever actually say they hate the constitution? I always thought they spoke what was on their minds.

You need to prove beyond a doubt that you have certified mind reading powers before you have any creditibility on this one.

Actions speak louder than words.

I mean ... Ginsberg ... does not like the US Constitution.  It does not have enough provision in it to allow the Government to implement Social Justice.  Thus, she suggested using something else.

FDR ... most certainly did not like the US Constitution.  He thus, packed the court with a bunch of Kangaroos, so that they would stretch the law in order for him to implement Social Justice.

Obama ... does not like the Consituttion.  The Constitution says what he can't do.  That Frustrates him, because what he wants to do is outside of the realm of power alloted by the Constitution.  So .. he tries the same tricks as FDR ... except ... Unfortunately for him .. he will not have FDR's kangaroo court to rubber stamp is Social Justice programs.

Leftists .... ok .. maybe they dont' "hate" the constitution .. but they most certainly do not agree with it.  They don't like it.  It necessitates that they do all kinds of gymnastics in its interpretation in order to justify implenting their Social Justice programs.

Flat out speaking .. the Constitution makes no provision or allottment of power to implement S.S., Medicare, Universal Healthare, National Education, National Welfare, Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac, The Federal Reserve, ... and a whole host of of other direct and indirect programs designed to "redistribute the wealth".  There is no justification in the constitution at all for such.  Sure .. Leftists have "Reinterpreted" the words .. "general welfare" to insinuate that it includes all of these, but it does not include any of this in original intent.

That frustrates Leftists ... and they don't like the Constitution because of it.  In essense .. they hate it.

FDR may not have "packed" the Supreme Court, at least not in the manner he had originally intended, however, he did appoint 8 of the 9 Justices of the Court:

As former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed:

“President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court ... not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate - a political body if there ever was one - who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary ... in Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937.[151]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedure...