|
Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/26/2016 12:20:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
A "strict Constitutionalist" is someone who intends to pursue their own agenda rather than the spirit of the law while hiding being a bullshit buzzword and pretending to be doing their job instead.
Nonsense. A strict constitutionalist believes that laws are to be made as part of the political process. That is the essence of democracy. Each time a new law is inflicted or imposed by an unelected judge, the role of democracy is reduced.
The role of a judge is to render judgement according to law; the role of the supreme court is using the standards embodied in the constitution to determine if laws are constitutional, to be the ultimate arbiter of legal matters, as well as a few other duties outlined in the constitution.
The constitution was supposed to represent the enduring, widespread will of the people; as opposed to laws which may reflect a more temporary resolution. It is for these reasons that modifying the constitution was supposed to be difficult.
a constitution is a contract.
a strict constitutionalist simply demands the contract be strictly upheld in its original understanding and intent.
the constitution represents much more actually.
It 'IS' the terms and conditions in which the people agree to be governed.
Hence we the people agree to governence under the corporation congress
IF:
Gubblemint does NOT fuck with our right to freely speak.
Gubblemint does NOT fuck with our right to freely exercise (practice) our religion.
Gubblemint does NOT fuck with our right to privacy.
Gubblemint does NOT fuck with our right to a fully empowered jury trial.
Gubblemint does NOT fuck with our right to remedy.
Gubblemint does NOT fuck with our right to be armed and all that goes with it.
Gubblemint does NOT fuck with or enact any law outside of due process. (lawful constitutional amendment) [court decisions do not and are not amend the constitution]
Hell we the people do not get to vote on any amendments or these court decisions yet we call ourselves a democracy? Do I hear delusional?
That is the strict interpretation of the constitution and only a small sample of what the gubblemint HAS FUCKED with.
In fact what has the gubblemint not fucked with?
What would the Crown of england say if we simply said to hell with your contracts treaties and agreements, move over and let Jimmy take over?
The idea that contracts and agreements can simply be dissolved through expediency and syntax terrorism used today is absurd on its face despite many americans simply accept it because some agency said so.
That said your use of the word enduring is light side, where the reality is that the constitution was intended to be the concrete used to sustain a cohesive timeless union between the people and their self government, though nothing could be farther from the truth because the steps to insure adequate measures were never put into law and agencies set up from the onset suffered and continue to suffer from a conflict in interest.
Laws previous to the US revolution the king who represents the 'State' in england owned and still owns the soil in al od , (the highest title in existence of US and british law). Everyone else rented from the king the land with ownership titles drawn up in fee simple.
Laws of the US were and remain the same.
The 50 states of the US own the soil in al od, as granted by congress and the people in the US own their land in....... you guessed it fee simple.
Fee simple is land owned in feud, which means a stipend must be paid to the land 'LORD', State.
Since rights in the british legal system stem from property rights, ownership, the people of the united states are in no different condition than the people of britain except they have a few extra layers of the onion to peel back before they can get to the core of their gubblemint! I digress. Anyway I do not take MM seriously because his post if you notice is contradictory on its face.
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/FEESPELMANnathanbailey1730bestSTATESOFTHEVASSAL.jpg[/image]
Enacting laws that allow for people to pay a FEE to replace military service does nothing to change the fact this is feudalism through and through.
If we want to talk about the constitution and its correct interpretation we need to look all the way back to the interpretations drawn all the way to the magna charta.
That said the constitution and bill of rights is pretty much a copy paste job of what was already accepted british law.
quote:
Bill of Rights 1689
The Declaration of Right was in December 1689 enacted in an Act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights 1689.[10] The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring:
laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament;
no taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;
the right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;
no standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament;[nb 2]
subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defence as permitted by law;
the election of members of Parliament should be free;
the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;
jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason trials should be freeholders;
promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
Parliaments should be held frequently.[11]
The Act declared James' flight from England following the Glorious Revolution to be an abdication of the throne. Furthermore, it listed twelve of James's policies by which James designed to "endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom".[12] These were:
by assuming and exercising the dispensing power;
by prosecuting the Seven Bishops; by establishing of the court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes;
by levying money for the crown by pretence of prerogative than the same was granted by Parliament;
by raising and maintaining a standing army in peacetime without the consent of Parliament;
by disarming Protestants and arming Catholics contrary to law;
by violating the election of MPs;
by prosecuting in the King's Bench for matters cognisable only in Parliament and "divers other arbitrary and illegal courses";
by employing unqualified persons to serve on juries;
by requiring an excessive bail for persons committed in criminal cases;
by imposing excessive fines and "illegal and cruel punishments inflicted";
by making "several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the person, upon whom the same were to be levied".[13]
In a prelude to the Act of Settlement to come twelve years later, the Bill of Rights barred Roman Catholics from the throne of England as "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince"; thus William III and Mary II were named as the successors of James II and that the throne would pass from them first to Mary's heirs, then to her sister, Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs (and, thereafter, to any heirs of William by a later marriage).
And the magna charta has the rest but I will skip that as I imagine all of the FREE (range) vassals get the point [8D]
Mark my words all the references to spelman will soon get very hard to come by and like so many others he will disappear from the 'modern' history books.
|
|
|
|
