100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Whats NOT in the constitution, | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
AlterNet / By Thom Hartmann 151 COMMENTS
Hartmann: The Radical Right Wing Supreme Court Is Acting Like It's a Monarchy Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law -- but that's what they're doing. 151 COMMENTS151 COMMENTS A A A June 30, 2014 | It's time to review Judicial Review. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law. That is a power exclusively held in the first and second branches of government: the Presidency and Congress. Even most modern constitutional monarchies do not allow their monarchs to interfere in the lawmaking process. But the Roberts Court has decided that it’s a monarch and that the United States is a constitutional monarchy. Today, the court released critical rulings about public employees and about Obamacare. In the former, the court invented a new category of public employee to decide the case, a classic case of legislating from the bench. In the latter, they created a new form of medical category, again creating law from the bench. This is not a power the Constitutional gives to the Court. What the Court should have done was simply decide each case for the specific person(s) the cases centered on and left it at that. Instead, the Court created a whole new category of public employee and applied it to the entire country without so much as a howdy-doo from Congress or the president, who are tasked by the Constitution with the job of doing such things. Similarly, in the Obamacare case, rather than serving as the final authority on an individual case, as the Constitution envisions, the Court decided to modify a law passed by Congress by differentiating between types of corporations and different types of healthcare. This judicial monarchy, known in legal circles as Judicial Review, must be restrained. And, under the Constitution’s Article 3, Section 2, Congress has the power—and I would argue, the obligation—to do it. The Constitution says explicitly that, "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress should pass a law invalidating Judicial Review. It wasn't always this way. From the founding of our republic in 1789 until 1803, the Supreme Court was just the final court of appeals. After all, the buck had to stop somewhere. The Court was sometimes referred to as the "dogs and chickens court," because America was so agrarian and there were so many battles between farmers that were decided different ways by different judges, that ultimately the Supreme Court had to make the final decision about whose dog was responsible for killing whose chicken. In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court took upon itself the power to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. Then-President Thomas Jefferson was horrified, and immediately wrote a letter to John Adams’ wife Abigail, a confidant, saying, "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Continuing his rage against the Supreme Court’s decision to give itself king-like powers, Jefferson wrote to Virginia Supreme Court Justice and Patrick Henry's father-in-law, Spencer Roane, "If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government…then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se (suicide pact)… The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary…" Jefferson believed, as did many of the founders, that the Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on individual cases about individual people or organizations. He did not believe that the court should have the right to strike down or write laws. Modern-day supporters of the doctrine of Judicial Review say, “If we don't have the Supreme Court deciding what laws are constitutional and what not, then who should?" To that, Jefferson had a simple answer: "The people themselves." In 1823, still bitter about the Supreme Court's decision 20 years earlier, he wrote, "This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law… The Chief Justice says,'there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but…the ultimate arbiter is the people." In other words, if Congress or the president passed unconstitutional laws, it’s the duty of their political opponents to point that out, and it’s the duty of the people to vote them out of office. That is how a democratic republic works, as opposed to the constitutional monarchy we now have. Interestingly, Jefferson's rage restrained the court. From 1803 until long after his death, the court did not again exercise judicial review by striking down a law or creating a doctrine that applied to the entire country. The second time they tried it was when Roger Taney was Chief Justice in 1856. Taney thought he could use the powers Chief Justice John had given the court in 1803 to end the "problem" of slavery. That second judicial review decision was Dred Scott .v Sanford. But Abraham Lincoln was having no part of it. He refused to recognize the Judicial Review component of Dred Scott and said, in effect, "That decision was a terrible one for poor Mr. Scott, but it doesn't apply to anybody else. I am going to emancipate all the rest of the slaves." Judicial review went on steroids in the 20th century, particularly during the presidency of FDR, although he slowed down the use of it in 1937 by threatening to use Article 3 Section 2 to regulate the Court by adding more members to it. And it became particularly toxic in the 1970s after Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell Memo, was put on the bench by Richard Nixon. He pushed through the idea that money is protected by the First Amendment as if it was speech, handing our political and electoral system over to billionaires and corporations in the Buckley v. Valejo decision. The grandson of that decision, Citizens United v. FEC, has done perhaps irreparable harm to our republic. And none of these concepts have ever been legislated or even debated on the floor of the House or Senate. Now the Supreme Court is using this illegitimate power in virtually every decision. The court could easily have decided in Hobby Lobby on behalf of or against that one particular corporation without generalizing their decision to all corporations. The court could easily, in the union case, have decided that that one particular woman, because of her unique circumstances, didn't need to join the union, without generalizing and creating an entirely new class of public employees. And they could have decided Hobby Lobby without giving corporations the right to hold and exercise a certain religious belief. This Supreme Court is out of control. It’s turned our democratic republic into a constitutional monarchy, and the monarchs, or at least five of them, are running amok. Congress must act. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 07/01/14 03:56 PM
|
|
AlterNet / By Thom Hartmann 151 COMMENTS Hartmann: The Radical Right Wing Supreme Court Is Acting Like It's a Monarchy Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law -- but that's what they're doing. 151 COMMENTS151 COMMENTS A A A June 30, 2014 | It's time to review Judicial Review. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law. That is a power exclusively held in the first and second branches of government: the Presidency and Congress. Even most modern constitutional monarchies do not allow their monarchs to interfere in the lawmaking process. But the Roberts Court has decided that it’s a monarch and that the United States is a constitutional monarchy. Today, the court released critical rulings about public employees and about Obamacare. In the former, the court invented a new category of public employee to decide the case, a classic case of legislating from the bench. In the latter, they created a new form of medical category, again creating law from the bench. This is not a power the Constitutional gives to the Court. What the Court should have done was simply decide each case for the specific person(s) the cases centered on and left it at that. Instead, the Court created a whole new category of public employee and applied it to the entire country without so much as a howdy-doo from Congress or the president, who are tasked by the Constitution with the job of doing such things. Similarly, in the Obamacare case, rather than serving as the final authority on an individual case, as the Constitution envisions, the Court decided to modify a law passed by Congress by differentiating between types of corporations and different types of healthcare. This judicial monarchy, known in legal circles as Judicial Review, must be restrained. And, under the Constitution’s Article 3, Section 2, Congress has the power—and I would argue, the obligation—to do it. The Constitution says explicitly that, "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress should pass a law invalidating Judicial Review. It wasn't always this way. From the founding of our republic in 1789 until 1803, the Supreme Court was just the final court of appeals. After all, the buck had to stop somewhere. The Court was sometimes referred to as the "dogs and chickens court," because America was so agrarian and there were so many battles between farmers that were decided different ways by different judges, that ultimately the Supreme Court had to make the final decision about whose dog was responsible for killing whose chicken. In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court took upon itself the power to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. Then-President Thomas Jefferson was horrified, and immediately wrote a letter to John Adams’ wife Abigail, a confidant, saying, "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Continuing his rage against the Supreme Court’s decision to give itself king-like powers, Jefferson wrote to Virginia Supreme Court Justice and Patrick Henry's father-in-law, Spencer Roane, "If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government…then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se (suicide pact)… The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary…" Jefferson believed, as did many of the founders, that the Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on individual cases about individual people or organizations. He did not believe that the court should have the right to strike down or write laws. Modern-day supporters of the doctrine of Judicial Review say, “If we don't have the Supreme Court deciding what laws are constitutional and what not, then who should?" To that, Jefferson had a simple answer: "The people themselves." In 1823, still bitter about the Supreme Court's decision 20 years earlier, he wrote, "This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law… The Chief Justice says,'there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but…the ultimate arbiter is the people." In other words, if Congress or the president passed unconstitutional laws, it’s the duty of their political opponents to point that out, and it’s the duty of the people to vote them out of office. That is how a democratic republic works, as opposed to the constitutional monarchy we now have. Interestingly, Jefferson's rage restrained the court. From 1803 until long after his death, the court did not again exercise judicial review by striking down a law or creating a doctrine that applied to the entire country. The second time they tried it was when Roger Taney was Chief Justice in 1856. Taney thought he could use the powers Chief Justice John had given the court in 1803 to end the "problem" of slavery. That second judicial review decision was Dred Scott .v Sanford. But Abraham Lincoln was having no part of it. He refused to recognize the Judicial Review component of Dred Scott and said, in effect, "That decision was a terrible one for poor Mr. Scott, but it doesn't apply to anybody else. I am going to emancipate all the rest of the slaves." Judicial review went on steroids in the 20th century, particularly during the presidency of FDR, although he slowed down the use of it in 1937 by threatening to use Article 3 Section 2 to regulate the Court by adding more members to it. And it became particularly toxic in the 1970s after Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell Memo, was put on the bench by Richard Nixon. He pushed through the idea that money is protected by the First Amendment as if it was speech, handing our political and electoral system over to billionaires and corporations in the Buckley v. Valejo decision. The grandson of that decision, Citizens United v. FEC, has done perhaps irreparable harm to our republic. And none of these concepts have ever been legislated or even debated on the floor of the House or Senate. Now the Supreme Court is using this illegitimate power in virtually every decision. The court could easily have decided in Hobby Lobby on behalf of or against that one particular corporation without generalizing their decision to all corporations. The court could easily, in the union case, have decided that that one particular woman, because of her unique circumstances, didn't need to join the union, without generalizing and creating an entirely new class of public employees. And they could have decided Hobby Lobby without giving corporations the right to hold and exercise a certain religious belief. This Supreme Court is out of control. It’s turned our democratic republic into a constitutional monarchy, and the monarchs, or at least five of them, are running amok. Congress must act. yep,Progressive Green Man Thom Hartmann! That Guy is so Leftwing,if he were a Bird,he'd fly in Circles,which he is doing any way! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AlterNet / By Thom Hartmann 151 COMMENTS Hartmann: The Radical Right Wing Supreme Court Is Acting Like It's a Monarchy Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law -- but that's what they're doing. 151 COMMENTS151 COMMENTS A A A June 30, 2014 | It's time to review Judicial Review. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law. That is a power exclusively held in the first and second branches of government: the Presidency and Congress. Even most modern constitutional monarchies do not allow their monarchs to interfere in the lawmaking process. But the Roberts Court has decided that it’s a monarch and that the United States is a constitutional monarchy. Today, the court released critical rulings about public employees and about Obamacare. In the former, the court invented a new category of public employee to decide the case, a classic case of legislating from the bench. In the latter, they created a new form of medical category, again creating law from the bench. This is not a power the Constitutional gives to the Court. What the Court should have done was simply decide each case for the specific person(s) the cases centered on and left it at that. Instead, the Court created a whole new category of public employee and applied it to the entire country without so much as a howdy-doo from Congress or the president, who are tasked by the Constitution with the job of doing such things. Similarly, in the Obamacare case, rather than serving as the final authority on an individual case, as the Constitution envisions, the Court decided to modify a law passed by Congress by differentiating between types of corporations and different types of healthcare. This judicial monarchy, known in legal circles as Judicial Review, must be restrained. And, under the Constitution’s Article 3, Section 2, Congress has the power—and I would argue, the obligation—to do it. The Constitution says explicitly that, "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress should pass a law invalidating Judicial Review. It wasn't always this way. From the founding of our republic in 1789 until 1803, the Supreme Court was just the final court of appeals. After all, the buck had to stop somewhere. The Court was sometimes referred to as the "dogs and chickens court," because America was so agrarian and there were so many battles between farmers that were decided different ways by different judges, that ultimately the Supreme Court had to make the final decision about whose dog was responsible for killing whose chicken. In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court took upon itself the power to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. Then-President Thomas Jefferson was horrified, and immediately wrote a letter to John Adams’ wife Abigail, a confidant, saying, "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Continuing his rage against the Supreme Court’s decision to give itself king-like powers, Jefferson wrote to Virginia Supreme Court Justice and Patrick Henry's father-in-law, Spencer Roane, "If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government…then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se (suicide pact)… The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary…" Jefferson believed, as did many of the founders, that the Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on individual cases about individual people or organizations. He did not believe that the court should have the right to strike down or write laws. Modern-day supporters of the doctrine of Judicial Review say, “If we don't have the Supreme Court deciding what laws are constitutional and what not, then who should?" To that, Jefferson had a simple answer: "The people themselves." In 1823, still bitter about the Supreme Court's decision 20 years earlier, he wrote, "This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law… The Chief Justice says,'there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but…the ultimate arbiter is the people." In other words, if Congress or the president passed unconstitutional laws, it’s the duty of their political opponents to point that out, and it’s the duty of the people to vote them out of office. That is how a democratic republic works, as opposed to the constitutional monarchy we now have. Interestingly, Jefferson's rage restrained the court. From 1803 until long after his death, the court did not again exercise judicial review by striking down a law or creating a doctrine that applied to the entire country. The second time they tried it was when Roger Taney was Chief Justice in 1856. Taney thought he could use the powers Chief Justice John had given the court in 1803 to end the "problem" of slavery. That second judicial review decision was Dred Scott .v Sanford. But Abraham Lincoln was having no part of it. He refused to recognize the Judicial Review component of Dred Scott and said, in effect, "That decision was a terrible one for poor Mr. Scott, but it doesn't apply to anybody else. I am going to emancipate all the rest of the slaves." Judicial review went on steroids in the 20th century, particularly during the presidency of FDR, although he slowed down the use of it in 1937 by threatening to use Article 3 Section 2 to regulate the Court by adding more members to it. And it became particularly toxic in the 1970s after Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell Memo, was put on the bench by Richard Nixon. He pushed through the idea that money is protected by the First Amendment as if it was speech, handing our political and electoral system over to billionaires and corporations in the Buckley v. Valejo decision. The grandson of that decision, Citizens United v. FEC, has done perhaps irreparable harm to our republic. And none of these concepts have ever been legislated or even debated on the floor of the House or Senate. Now the Supreme Court is using this illegitimate power in virtually every decision. The court could easily have decided in Hobby Lobby on behalf of or against that one particular corporation without generalizing their decision to all corporations. The court could easily, in the union case, have decided that that one particular woman, because of her unique circumstances, didn't need to join the union, without generalizing and creating an entirely new class of public employees. And they could have decided Hobby Lobby without giving corporations the right to hold and exercise a certain religious belief. This Supreme Court is out of control. It’s turned our democratic republic into a constitutional monarchy, and the monarchs, or at least five of them, are running amok. Congress must act. yep,Progressive Green Man Thom Hartmann! That Guy is so Leftwing,if he were a Bird,he'd fly in Circles,which he is doing any way! Is that not an ad homienen(sp?) argument? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AlterNet / By Thom Hartmann 151 COMMENTS Hartmann: The Radical Right Wing Supreme Court Is Acting Like It's a Monarchy Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law -- but that's what they're doing. 151 COMMENTS151 COMMENTS A A A June 30, 2014 | It's time to review Judicial Review. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law. That is a power exclusively held in the first and second branches of government: the Presidency and Congress. Even most modern constitutional monarchies do not allow their monarchs to interfere in the lawmaking process. But the Roberts Court has decided that it’s a monarch and that the United States is a constitutional monarchy. Today, the court released critical rulings about public employees and about Obamacare. In the former, the court invented a new category of public employee to decide the case, a classic case of legislating from the bench. In the latter, they created a new form of medical category, again creating law from the bench. This is not a power the Constitutional gives to the Court. What the Court should have done was simply decide each case for the specific person(s) the cases centered on and left it at that. Instead, the Court created a whole new category of public employee and applied it to the entire country without so much as a howdy-doo from Congress or the president, who are tasked by the Constitution with the job of doing such things. Similarly, in the Obamacare case, rather than serving as the final authority on an individual case, as the Constitution envisions, the Court decided to modify a law passed by Congress by differentiating between types of corporations and different types of healthcare. This judicial monarchy, known in legal circles as Judicial Review, must be restrained. And, under the Constitution’s Article 3, Section 2, Congress has the power—and I would argue, the obligation—to do it. The Constitution says explicitly that, "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress should pass a law invalidating Judicial Review. It wasn't always this way. From the founding of our republic in 1789 until 1803, the Supreme Court was just the final court of appeals. After all, the buck had to stop somewhere. The Court was sometimes referred to as the "dogs and chickens court," because America was so agrarian and there were so many battles between farmers that were decided different ways by different judges, that ultimately the Supreme Court had to make the final decision about whose dog was responsible for killing whose chicken. In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court took upon itself the power to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. Then-President Thomas Jefferson was horrified, and immediately wrote a letter to John Adams’ wife Abigail, a confidant, saying, "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Continuing his rage against the Supreme Court’s decision to give itself king-like powers, Jefferson wrote to Virginia Supreme Court Justice and Patrick Henry's father-in-law, Spencer Roane, "If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government…then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se (suicide pact)… The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary…" Jefferson believed, as did many of the founders, that the Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on individual cases about individual people or organizations. He did not believe that the court should have the right to strike down or write laws. Modern-day supporters of the doctrine of Judicial Review say, “If we don't have the Supreme Court deciding what laws are constitutional and what not, then who should?" To that, Jefferson had a simple answer: "The people themselves." In 1823, still bitter about the Supreme Court's decision 20 years earlier, he wrote, "This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law… The Chief Justice says,'there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but…the ultimate arbiter is the people." In other words, if Congress or the president passed unconstitutional laws, it’s the duty of their political opponents to point that out, and it’s the duty of the people to vote them out of office. That is how a democratic republic works, as opposed to the constitutional monarchy we now have. Interestingly, Jefferson's rage restrained the court. From 1803 until long after his death, the court did not again exercise judicial review by striking down a law or creating a doctrine that applied to the entire country. The second time they tried it was when Roger Taney was Chief Justice in 1856. Taney thought he could use the powers Chief Justice John had given the court in 1803 to end the "problem" of slavery. That second judicial review decision was Dred Scott .v Sanford. But Abraham Lincoln was having no part of it. He refused to recognize the Judicial Review component of Dred Scott and said, in effect, "That decision was a terrible one for poor Mr. Scott, but it doesn't apply to anybody else. I am going to emancipate all the rest of the slaves." Judicial review went on steroids in the 20th century, particularly during the presidency of FDR, although he slowed down the use of it in 1937 by threatening to use Article 3 Section 2 to regulate the Court by adding more members to it. And it became particularly toxic in the 1970s after Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell Memo, was put on the bench by Richard Nixon. He pushed through the idea that money is protected by the First Amendment as if it was speech, handing our political and electoral system over to billionaires and corporations in the Buckley v. Valejo decision. The grandson of that decision, Citizens United v. FEC, has done perhaps irreparable harm to our republic. And none of these concepts have ever been legislated or even debated on the floor of the House or Senate. Now the Supreme Court is using this illegitimate power in virtually every decision. The court could easily have decided in Hobby Lobby on behalf of or against that one particular corporation without generalizing their decision to all corporations. The court could easily, in the union case, have decided that that one particular woman, because of her unique circumstances, didn't need to join the union, without generalizing and creating an entirely new class of public employees. And they could have decided Hobby Lobby without giving corporations the right to hold and exercise a certain religious belief. This Supreme Court is out of control. It’s turned our democratic republic into a constitutional monarchy, and the monarchs, or at least five of them, are running amok. Congress must act. Hartmann wants a toothless SCOTUS so that the other two branches of the U.S. government can violate the U.S. Constitution at will. Go figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 Blistering Highlights from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Hobby Lobby Dissent
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." 203 COMMENTS203 COMMENTS A A A Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons July 1, 2014 | Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a scathing 35-page dissent in the disastrous 5-4 Supreme Court decision Monday granting corporations First Amendment religious rights to deny women birth control coverage. The court had ventured far out in to unprecedented territory by granting private companies the right to be exempt from laws their owners don't agree with. Crazy! In their zeal to deny women access to reproductive healthcare, expand the rights of corporations and hurt Obamacare, "The court," she wrote, "has ventured into a minefield." Sadly, her clear-eyed reasoning did not sway the Court's five arch conservatives, but it is worth reading her dissent here (starts on page 60.) For those in a bigger hurry, here are highlights: 1. "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision." 2. "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." 3. "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community." 4. "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage" 5. "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults." 6. "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." 7. “Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well being. Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.” 8. “The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.” 9. “Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?” 10. “The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public. No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.’” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh gee, how did women in the USA obtain birth control before the ACA was enacted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Gee ... who can name the document where this quote is found? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" Who can name the document which contains the above quote? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh gee, how did women in the USA obtain birth control before the ACA was enacted? planned parenthood, seriously... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AlterNet / By Thom Hartmann 151 COMMENTS Hartmann: The Radical Right Wing Supreme Court Is Acting Like It's a Monarchy Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law -- but that's what they're doing. 151 COMMENTS151 COMMENTS A A A June 30, 2014 | It's time to review Judicial Review. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law. That is a power exclusively held in the first and second branches of government: the Presidency and Congress. Even most modern constitutional monarchies do not allow their monarchs to interfere in the lawmaking process. But the Roberts Court has decided that it’s a monarch and that the United States is a constitutional monarchy. Today, the court released critical rulings about public employees and about Obamacare. In the former, the court invented a new category of public employee to decide the case, a classic case of legislating from the bench. In the latter, they created a new form of medical category, again creating law from the bench. This is not a power the Constitutional gives to the Court. What the Court should have done was simply decide each case for the specific person(s) the cases centered on and left it at that. Instead, the Court created a whole new category of public employee and applied it to the entire country without so much as a howdy-doo from Congress or the president, who are tasked by the Constitution with the job of doing such things. Similarly, in the Obamacare case, rather than serving as the final authority on an individual case, as the Constitution envisions, the Court decided to modify a law passed by Congress by differentiating between types of corporations and different types of healthcare. This judicial monarchy, known in legal circles as Judicial Review, must be restrained. And, under the Constitution’s Article 3, Section 2, Congress has the power—and I would argue, the obligation—to do it. The Constitution says explicitly that, "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress should pass a law invalidating Judicial Review. It wasn't always this way. From the founding of our republic in 1789 until 1803, the Supreme Court was just the final court of appeals. After all, the buck had to stop somewhere. The Court was sometimes referred to as the "dogs and chickens court," because America was so agrarian and there were so many battles between farmers that were decided different ways by different judges, that ultimately the Supreme Court had to make the final decision about whose dog was responsible for killing whose chicken. In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court took upon itself the power to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. Then-President Thomas Jefferson was horrified, and immediately wrote a letter to John Adams’ wife Abigail, a confidant, saying, "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Continuing his rage against the Supreme Court’s decision to give itself king-like powers, Jefferson wrote to Virginia Supreme Court Justice and Patrick Henry's father-in-law, Spencer Roane, "If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government…then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se (suicide pact)… The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary…" Jefferson believed, as did many of the founders, that the Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on individual cases about individual people or organizations. He did not believe that the court should have the right to strike down or write laws. Modern-day supporters of the doctrine of Judicial Review say, “If we don't have the Supreme Court deciding what laws are constitutional and what not, then who should?" To that, Jefferson had a simple answer: "The people themselves." In 1823, still bitter about the Supreme Court's decision 20 years earlier, he wrote, "This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law… The Chief Justice says,'there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but…the ultimate arbiter is the people." In other words, if Congress or the president passed unconstitutional laws, it’s the duty of their political opponents to point that out, and it’s the duty of the people to vote them out of office. That is how a democratic republic works, as opposed to the constitutional monarchy we now have. Interestingly, Jefferson's rage restrained the court. From 1803 until long after his death, the court did not again exercise judicial review by striking down a law or creating a doctrine that applied to the entire country. The second time they tried it was when Roger Taney was Chief Justice in 1856. Taney thought he could use the powers Chief Justice John had given the court in 1803 to end the "problem" of slavery. That second judicial review decision was Dred Scott .v Sanford. But Abraham Lincoln was having no part of it. He refused to recognize the Judicial Review component of Dred Scott and said, in effect, "That decision was a terrible one for poor Mr. Scott, but it doesn't apply to anybody else. I am going to emancipate all the rest of the slaves." Judicial review went on steroids in the 20th century, particularly during the presidency of FDR, although he slowed down the use of it in 1937 by threatening to use Article 3 Section 2 to regulate the Court by adding more members to it. And it became particularly toxic in the 1970s after Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell Memo, was put on the bench by Richard Nixon. He pushed through the idea that money is protected by the First Amendment as if it was speech, handing our political and electoral system over to billionaires and corporations in the Buckley v. Valejo decision. The grandson of that decision, Citizens United v. FEC, has done perhaps irreparable harm to our republic. And none of these concepts have ever been legislated or even debated on the floor of the House or Senate. Now the Supreme Court is using this illegitimate power in virtually every decision. The court could easily have decided in Hobby Lobby on behalf of or against that one particular corporation without generalizing their decision to all corporations. The court could easily, in the union case, have decided that that one particular woman, because of her unique circumstances, didn't need to join the union, without generalizing and creating an entirely new class of public employees. And they could have decided Hobby Lobby without giving corporations the right to hold and exercise a certain religious belief. This Supreme Court is out of control. It’s turned our democratic republic into a constitutional monarchy, and the monarchs, or at least five of them, are running amok. Congress must act. "Congress must act." you're joking I assume |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" Who can name the document which contains the above quote? m of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 2 A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment 3 No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment 4 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 5 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment 6 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment 7 In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment 8 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. First Ten Amendments to the US Constitution,also commonly known as "The Bill Of Rights"! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 07/02/14 04:54 AM
|
|
the revolution of this country was fought to obtain the principles of the declaration of independence the constitution was written to help enforce the declaration of independence and you left out separation of church and state in list of not in Constitution and the 6th amendment is In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. and the 7th is In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. so judicial review is there as the 6th & 7th amendments are in bill of rights which are undeniable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from declaration of independence show travel is a right
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from declaration of independence He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. thus showing you do not need a Constitution to say what your rights are as the Constitution has not been written yet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 07/02/14 05:23 AM
|
|
the Constitution is written in simple English it does not need interpreted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 07/02/14 05:52 AM
|
|
15th amendment of the CONSTITUTION The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 19th amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. affects 15 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. from declaration of independence He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. .... For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: .... so right to vote is there at least TWICE and also in the declaration of independence at least TWICE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Innocent until Proven Guilty: does not need to be there that would be the same as saying that you can live without O2 until it is proven are you gonna try to do it just because someone says you did something does not make it so just like saying you did not do something does not make it so that is why the 5th 6th and 7th amendments are in the Constitution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the revolution of this country was fought to obtain the principles of the declaration of independence the constitution was written to help enforce the declaration of independence and you left out separation of church and state in list of not in Constitution and the 6th amendment is In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. and the 7th is In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. so judicial review is there as the 6th & 7th amendments are in bill of rights which are undeniable perhaps you could show them to Barack after golf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also on The Right to a Fair Trial
from declaration of independence For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the revolution of this country was fought to obtain the principles of the declaration of independence the constitution was written to help enforce the declaration of independence and you left out separation of church and state in list of not in Constitution and the 6th amendment is In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. and the 7th is In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. so judicial review is there as the 6th & 7th amendments are in bill of rights which are undeniable ------------------------------------------------------------- from declaration of independence show travel is a right The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. ----------------------------------------------------------------- from declaration of independence He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. thus showing you do not need a Constitution to say what your rights are as the Constitution has not been written yet ----------------------------------------------------------------- 15th amendment of the CONSTITUTION The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 19th amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. affects 15 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. from declaration of independence He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. .... For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: .... so right to vote is there at least TWICE and also in the declaration of independence at least TWICE ----------------------------------------------------------------- the Constitution is written in simple English it does not need interpreted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Innocent until Proven Guilty: does not need to be there that would be the same as saying that you can live without O2 until it is proven are you gonna try to do it just because someone says you did something does not make it so just like saying you did not do something does not make it so that is why the 5th 6th and 7th amendments are in the Constitution ------------------------------------------------------------------ also on The Right to a Fair Trial from declaration of independence For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: |
|
|
|
|
