Tom and Kris: Part of the reason I don't address your arguments is because they are not legitimate arguments. For example, Kris likes to use court cases and precedence to support her argument about the law, but by doing that you are saying that the judiciary makes law, and they don't. The Supreme Court, for instance, is supposed to apply the law, but even Sonia Sotomayor admitted judges are not supposed to make law. And what is the law? The U.S. Constitution, right? It is the law of the land. So, if what they are ruling on is not mentioned in the Constitution as being a federal concern (specifically in Article I, Sec. 8, or any amendments) then the court cannot rule on whatever is before them. If they do, and it makes legal, or not legal, something, then they made law and that is unconstitutional. Therefore, to use precedence and court cases as examples of the law is not a legitimate tact. You know, this give me an idea for a post. I think I will title it "Ignoring The Constitution"
Douglas V. Gibbs | Homepage | 09.28.09 - 4:28 pm | #
So.. "part of the reason" is because Doug has absolutely no idea how the our system of government works in the US. He is saying that the entire history of the United States Supreme Court is invalid, and the concepts of "federalism" are not actually as they've been applied in this nation for over two hundred years.
Doug does not think his view is "fringe", despite, you know, our entire history and legal system operating completely opposite of what Doug espouses.
Of course, the other "part of the reason" is because Doug cannot formulate a coherent argument to rebut very basic points that other people are making.
What is Article 1, section 8? It's starts as;
The Congress shall have Power To
Then it goes on to enumerate the powers of Congress. Doug extrapolates that to claim that a co-equal branch of Government, the judiciary, has jurisdiction only in cases involved in what the Constitutions says Congress' powers are, or "any amendments".
That is exactly what the Supreme Court does when it takes on any case. Every single law that is passed in this nation is subject to examination under Constitutional muster. Cases that are not relevant, are not reviewed.
Then Doug berates everyone else for being "stupid" and not understanding the Constitution. That has to be one of the more remarkable things I've ever seen claimed by anyone who was not holed up at Ruby Ridge.
.....
So what do we call people who stand in direct opposition to the United States form of government?
6 comments:
There are many morons on the internet, but it takes a particularly special type of moron (or "moran") to claim that using court cases and "precedence" to support arguments about the law is "not legitimate".
This is in no way related, but someone should remind Doug that you need to put 2 space's after a period before beginning a new sentence.
Internet Grammer Nazi's unite!
It's far less irritating than the giant walls of text he is so fond of using.
I'd never heard of 2 spaces after a period, just one, so I googled it...
http://webword.com/reports/period.html
Interesting history.
I did a test after reading the link. It's true.. web browsers don't display the 2 spaces anyway.
Of course, Doug doesn't seem to need to use any spacing what-so-ever.
I'm waiting for Doug to riddle me this:
If it was the Framers'intention to separate power to ensure liberty, pray tell, how is it that the judiciary can then be less than Congress?
In Doug's world, that would leave the Executive and Congress to interpert the law.
I call that a dictatorship and mob rule respectively..
just sayin
Post a Comment