For those of you out there dreading tommorow's SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment please keep in mind that it is UNCHRISTIAN to pray that certain members of the court die peacefully in their sleep before any more decisions are handed down.  

Really, I checked.  It is not acceptable.

In the spirit of compromise, hope and change, I'll be unchristian just this once.

bedbug wrote:In the spirit of compromise, hope and change, I'll be unchristian just this once.

Wow!  It is possible that GOPER and Obama would both be proud of you for that stance.

Wow, you must know that this is totally inflaming language and would set a very bad prescedent for the moderates we are trying to persuade to vote for the wonderful one, John McCain.  We must all take a step back and use our best PC thoughts and language.  SCOTUS will decide what is best for moderate America and we should never criticize them so we can all live happily ever after and John McCain can be our next President.  It will happen just as soon as all you radical, rightwing, hatemongering, Reagan and Buckley loving dittoheads all give it up, bend to the wind,  and decide to vote for McCain.    

Sorry, Goper made me say that.

SoldiersMum wrote:Wow, you must know that this is totally inflaming language and would set a very bad prescedent for the moderates we are trying to persuade to vote for the wonderful one, John McCain.  We must all take a step back and use our best PC thoughts and language.  SCOTUS will decide what is best for moderate America and we should never criticize them so we can all live happily ever after and John McCain can be our next President.  It will happen just as soon as all you radical, rightwing, hatemongering, Reagan and Buckley loving dittoheads all give it up, bend to the wind,  and decide to vote for McCain.     

Sorry, Goper made me say that.

Sorry, I don't buy it.  GOPER doesn't spell that well.  And the post wasn't nearly arrogant or insulting enough to be his handiwork.

paleocon wrote:

SoldiersMum wrote:Wow, you must know that this is totally inflaming language and would set a very bad prescedent for the moderates we are trying to persuade to vote for the wonderful one, John McCain.  We must all take a step back and use our best PC thoughts and language.  SCOTUS will decide what is best for moderate America and we should never criticize them so we can all live happily ever after and John McCain can be our next President.  It will happen just as soon as all you radical, rightwing, hatemongering, Reagan and Buckley loving dittoheads all give it up, bend to the wind,  and decide to vote for McCain.     

Sorry, Goper made me say that.

Sorry, I don't buy it.  GOPER doesn't spell that well.  And the post wasn't nearly arrogant or insulting enough to be his handiwork.

hahahahaheeheeheehee  I was just trying to help out all those people who miss his condescending RINO bullsh*t.

SoldiersMum wrote:What is the method to impeach a Supreme Court Justice?  I know 5 who need to leave as they are no longer rendering decisions based on the constitution but rather based on Communist Party DNC ideology.

I don't think that there is one.  If there is, it's not in the Constitution; and I don't know what types of actions would warrant impeachment.

I believe that we need a Constitutional Amendment which makes it clear that refusing to rule according to the plain language of the Constitution, imposing Foreign Law over the Constitution, or substituting the Constituion's plain meaning with one's personal views, would be grounds for impeachment.

Personally, I think that those things I mention should also be grounds for an indictment for TREASON.

Eyas wrote:
I don't think that there is one.  If there is, it's not in the Constitution; and I don't know what types of actions would warrant impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3 appears to cover impeachment of any federal official.  A Supreme Court Justice has been impeached only one time in our history.  He was not convicted by the Senate.  

Eyas wrote:
I believe that we need a Constitutional Amendment which makes it clear that refusing to rule according to the plain language of the Constitution, imposing Foreign Law over the Constitution, or substituting the Constituion's plain meaning with one's personal views, would be grounds for impeachment.

Personally, I think that those things I mention should also be grounds for an indictment for TREASON.

I couldn't agree more.  But, it is obviously unlikely to happen in the present climate.  Really, the only solution to the unconstitutional behavior in Washington is for the States to take action to rein in federal abuses but there is obviously insufficient consensus on that front too.

Thought you guys might find the following perspective interesting and more to the point!

On June 25th, 2008, five members of our Supreme Court perpetuated a lie to justify and impose their personal standards of justice within the State of Louisiana, and they refused to uphold the people’s adopted penal code requiring the death penalty for a child rapist.
And just what was the big lie told? Justice Kennedy in delivering the opinion of the Court wrote:

The Eighth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[e]excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The Fourteenth Amendment made the Eighth Amendment of the federal Constitution applicable to the States? A lie like that, Justice Kennedy, is easy to state, but it is a far different matter to provide the documentation to substantiate such an assertion!

The fact is, Kennedy’s assertion is an invention of the Supreme Court of the United States used to gather dictatorial powers to itself and the Washington Establishment, undermine federalism, and is not in harmony with the preponderance of evidence documenting the very narrow intentions and beliefs for which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and which I will briefly touch upon shortly. But first, and for the benefit of those who have an appetite for historical facts, rather than fiction, let us recall why the first ten amendments were added to our federal Constitution.

It is amazing how our federal Bill of Rights has been repeatedly misrepresented by our employees in Washington in order to subjugate the very intentions for which it was adopted which was to restrict our federal government’s exercise of power and preserve and protect federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

The intentions for which the federal Bill of Rights was sent to the States for ratification is documented in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..

Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The unadulterated truth is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were never intended to apply to or restrict the sovereignty of the people within the various States nor interfere with their constitutionally established state governments, nor allow the federal government to second guess the penal laws adopted by the people within the four corners of their respective state Constitutions and Declarations of Rights.

It is also important to note how Madison articulates the prevailing sentiments of the people with regard to the adoption of our Constitution’s first ten amendments, adopted in support of “federalism“:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And so, the very reason for adopting the first ten amendments was to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan and further restrict the federal government‘s power.

Keep in mind that before our federal government was created the various state constitutions and their Declarations of Rights as adopted by the people in their respective states were intended to insure those at the helm of state government power protected the lives, liberty and property of the people as commanded by a State’s written Constitution. For example see: Maryland’s DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, November 3, 1776 And in particular see XIV of Maryland‘s Declaration of Rights:

. That sanguinary laws ought to be avoided, as far as is consistent with the safety of the State: and no law, to inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties, ought to bc made in any case, or at any time hereafter.

And so, it becomes evident from historical facts that our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were not intended to be enforceable upon the States by the federal government, but were intended to restrict the federal government. And thus, the remaining question to be addressed is Justice Kennedy’s assertion that

The Eighth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[e]excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment establishes beyond any doubt the prevailing intention was to incorporate the objectives of a proposed Civil Rights Act into the Constitution and had nothing to do with making the Eighth Amendment, or any of the other nine amendments being made applicable to the States.

There is an abundance of documented evidence the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically intended to apply in a very narrow area which was to prohibit state legislation based upon race, color, or previous condition of slavery. For example, Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was being debated explains the intentions as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

The bottom line is, Justice Kennedy’s assertion about the Fourteenth Amendment is not in harmony with the preponderance of evidence documenting the intentions and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and thus, his opinion is based upon a myth, a myth generated and nurtured by the SCOTUS during the past fifty or so years in an attempt by the Washington Establishment to weaken and dissolved federalism, our Constitution’s plan. The plain truth is, Kennedy has perpetuated the big lie concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not intended to allow Kennedy to second guess the People’s adopted penal code in Louisiana, nor allow Roe vs. Wade, allow Martin, a cripple, to ride around in a golf cart during the PGA event, nor was the Fourteenth Amendment intended to allowed Justice Ginsburg to command VMI to admit females into the Virginia Military Institute.

Isn’t it time to demand our public servants on the SCOTUS substantiate their opinions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment with historical documentation from those who framed and ratified the amendment? Or will its members be allowed to continue to make things up as they go along and ignore their oath of office to support and defend “this Constitution” and not one they make up as they carry on from day to day?

Regards,

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.