• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Only in America

Faster horses

Well-known member
Got this in an email so read at your own risk. :D Lots of TRUTH here...


Canadian's Version of David Letterman's Top 10. Just makes you wanna shake your head in disbelief.

This is Canada 's Top Ten List of America 's Stupidity. Of course we look like idiots because we are.

Number 10 Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate Obama campaign fund-raising event.

Number 9 Only in America ...could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans - 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!

Number 8 Only in America ...could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

Number 7 Only in America ...can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

Number 6 Only in America...would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens (probably should be number one).

Number 5 Only in America ....could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as EXTREMIST’S.

Number 4 Only in America ...could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

Number 3 Only in America ...could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company(Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

Number 2 Only in America ... could you collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money .

And Number 1 Only in America...could the rich people- who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
 

Steve

Well-known member
yep,.. as long as you can fool about half the folk all the time... then you can do stupid liberal stuff that doesn't makes any sense to the rest of US and the world....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Number 5 Only in America ....could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as EXTREMIST’S.

Yes- I believe in balancing the budget... What unconstitutional issue do you believe I support... Sometimes I disagree with a Court/SCOTUS decision - but recognize as the Constitution points out- in most part they are the final decision maker and until a new law is drawn or a Constitutional amendment is adapted-- their decision is the law of the land....

Article III


Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, 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.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


The Court and Constitutional Interpretation





"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building


"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.


Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.




Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Isn't that cute...OT trying to move right on the political spectrum as he sees the "winds a changin"...next thing you know, he'll be Teabagging again in public
 

Brad S

Well-known member
How bout the 10th By GOD amendment.

I don't think winds are changing. The DNC is going to continue stealing elections until they understand lead poison is unhealthy. Stealing elections is why we need the second amendment and why the commies want to subvert the second amendment.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Well noted ww. OT, the point ww makes is you err in asking what part of the constitution do I suggest you oppose. #5 means you call me dismissive slurs for demanding constitutional adherence.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
How bout the 10th By GOD amendment.

I don't think winds are changing. The DNC is going to continue stealing elections until they understand lead poison is unhealthy. Stealing elections is why we need the second amendment and why the commies want to subvert the second amendment.

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.

On what subjects do you have in mind?
I think in most instances where I have thought that way- after going back into history I found somewhere where our states or their representative (legislatures) gave up many of those powers to the states- often in order to become states... And often that was so we didn't have 50 states going 50 different directions with opposing laws...
To-wit the Supreme Courts directive:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction-to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

And many of the powers that used to belong to the Congress- Congress gave up to the bureaucrats...
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Absolutely bureaucrats have been ceeded powers that no one in the federal government should have. Ron Paul sites 5 cabinet level positions that are illegal. Start with the dept of education, that's not specifically enumerated in the constitution. So because I demand simple adherence to an easily understood constitution, I'm an extremist.

Did you know, at the time the bill of rights was being discussed, the argument against the amendments advanced by Madison and others went like this, "why do we need these amendments when there is no authority in the federal government to encroach on these rights?" That is how strictly limited federal powers are lawfully intended. If jimmy carter wants to start the dept of education, he needs to amend the constitution - but I'm the anarchist crazy because I demand respect for law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Absolutely bureaucrats have been ceeded powers that no one in the federal government should have. Ron Paul sites 5 cabinet level positions that are illegal. Start with the dept of education, that's not specifically enumerated in the constitution. So because I demand simple adherence to an easily understood constitution, I'm an extremist.

Did you know, at the time the bill of rights was being discussed, the argument against the amendments advanced by Madison and others went like this, "why do we need these amendments when there is no authority in the federal government to encroach on these rights?" That is how strictly limited federal powers are lawfully intended. If jimmy carter wants to start the dept of education, he needs to amend the constitution - but I'm the anarchist crazy because I demand respect for law.

Eisenhower created the cabinet level agency Dept of Health, Education and Welfare-Nixon created the EPA--- GW created the largest and most powerful cabinet level agency- the Dept of Homeland Security... Those making the laws in our Republic- Congress- seemed to think they were needed... But none of those were done by amending the constitution.... And so far they have stood up to the tests put before the Supreme Court...

I don't think simple adherence to an easily understood constitution is possible today in such a complex, fast changing, instant news, global travel and global multiculturalism... The courts are years behind in catching up on the laws of instant world wide videos, cell phone privacy, drone privacy, internet crime, etc., etc.-- all issues our forefathers didn't write into the constitution specifically , but left the document vague and open enough that it could cover all situations by interpretation as a "living Constitution"....

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.


Sorry- But I think I will believe the Supreme Court Justices and the Courts of our land who have 200+ years precedence and research into their decisions over what you were told by some of the current anti- all government folks like old Bundy that want to stir up hate and discontent to get something for nothing...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
How bout the 10th By GOD amendment.

I don't think winds are changing. The DNC is going to continue stealing elections until they understand lead poison is unhealthy. Stealing elections is why we need the second amendment and why the commies want to subvert the second amendment.

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.

On what subjects do you have in mind?
I think in most instances where I have thought that way- after going back into history I found somewhere where our states or their representative (legislatures) gave up many of those powers to the states- often in order to become states... And often that was so we didn't have 50 states going 50 different directions with opposing laws...
To-wit the Supreme Courts directive:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction-to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

And many of the powers that used to belong to the Congress- Congress gave up to the bureaucrats...

and those bureaucrats wish to wholeheartedly thank you fro your continued support...
 

Latest posts

Top