One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
It Looks Like We Are Down To One Branch Of Government
May 8, 2017 11:28:21   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
It Looks Like We Are Down To One Branch Of Government
SCOTUS OPERATES UNLAWFULLY
by Pat Shannan
http://www.ini-world-report.org/2017/05/02/scotus-operates-unlawfully/

The Founders crafted for us a Constitution that establishes three separate and distinct branches of government: a legislative branch to pass laws, an executive branch to enforce them, and a judicial branch to use those laws to settle disputes.

Although the standard mantra is that they were designed to be “co-equal” branches of government, that’s not what the Founders intended. The legislative branch is intended to be the supreme branch of government, since it and it alone has the authority to make laws.

The very first words in the Constitution, after the Preamble, are these (emphasis mine): “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The word “all” in the phrase “all legislative Powers” means all. As in every last little bit of it. According to the Founders’ Constitution, then, how much legislative power does the executive branch have? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It’s the job of the executive branch to implement laws, not to make them.

More to the point, how much legislative power does the judicial branch have, according to the Founders’ Constitution? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It has been given absolutely zero authority to make law, to change law, or to rewrite law. It is thus impossible, if we are governed by the Founders’ Constitution, for the Supreme Court ever to create “the law of the land” about anything whatsoever. A Supreme Court “opinion” (that’s what the Supreme Court itself calls them – not “rulings” or “laws” but “opinions”) cannot possibly under any faithful construction of the Constitution create law.

Is a******n “the law of the land?” Absolutely not. Is sodomy-based marriage “the law of the land?” Absolutely not. The Court was never, ever given that kind of power by the Founders’ Constitution.

So how did we reach the place where nobody knows what the “law of the land” is until the Supreme Court rules? How did we get to the place where we all must hold our breath and cross our fingers and hope the Court stumbles into the t***h? How did the Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power? The answer is easy: the Court stole it.

And we let them do it. And we continue to let them get away with it.The root of this pernicious state of affairs goes all the way back to 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall invented the concept of “judicial review” magically out of the ether. There is no place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is given the authority to decide what the law is and to decide what laws are constitutional and which ones aren’t.

Two recent and glaring overreaches of the federal judiciary exemplify this twisted state of affairs. One is the ruling by a low level, bottom-rung district judge in San Francisco setting aside the president’s completely lawful executive order suspending immigration from six jihadi-prone Muslim nations. This judge paralyzed the entire government of the United States with no constitutional warrant or justification and made us vulnerable to terrorism at the same time. And everybody let him do it. Then another federal judge in Hawaii did the same thing. And everybody let him get away with it, too.

Then a federal judge in Northern California, William Orrick, forbade the Department of Justice to withhold grants from jurisdictions which proudly and defiantly break federal law by harboring i*****l a***n criminals and refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement....

Reply
May 8, 2017 18:29:24   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
eagleye13 wrote:
It Looks Like We Are Down To One Branch Of Government
SCOTUS OPERATES UNLAWFULLY
by Pat Shannan
http://www.ini-world-report.org/2017/05/02/scotus-operates-unlawfully/

The Founders crafted for us a Constitution that establishes three separate and distinct branches of government: a legislative branch to pass laws, an executive branch to enforce them, and a judicial branch to use those laws to settle disputes.

Although the standard mantra is that they were designed to be “co-equal” branches of government, that’s not what the Founders intended. The legislative branch is intended to be the supreme branch of government, since it and it alone has the authority to make laws.

The very first words in the Constitution, after the Preamble, are these (emphasis mine): “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The word “all” in the phrase “all legislative Powers” means all. As in every last little bit of it. According to the Founders’ Constitution, then, how much legislative power does the executive branch have? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It’s the job of the executive branch to implement laws, not to make them.

More to the point, how much legislative power does the judicial branch have, according to the Founders’ Constitution? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It has been given absolutely zero authority to make law, to change law, or to rewrite law. It is thus impossible, if we are governed by the Founders’ Constitution, for the Supreme Court ever to create “the law of the land” about anything whatsoever. A Supreme Court “opinion” (that’s what the Supreme Court itself calls them – not “rulings” or “laws” but “opinions”) cannot possibly under any faithful construction of the Constitution create law.

Is a******n “the law of the land?” Absolutely not. Is sodomy-based marriage “the law of the land?” Absolutely not. The Court was never, ever given that kind of power by the Founders’ Constitution.

So how did we reach the place where nobody knows what the “law of the land” is until the Supreme Court rules? How did we get to the place where we all must hold our breath and cross our fingers and hope the Court stumbles into the t***h? How did the Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power? The answer is easy: the Court stole it.

And we let them do it. And we continue to let them get away with it.The root of this pernicious state of affairs goes all the way back to 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall invented the concept of “judicial review” magically out of the ether. There is no place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is given the authority to decide what the law is and to decide what laws are constitutional and which ones aren’t.

Two recent and glaring overreaches of the federal judiciary exemplify this twisted state of affairs. One is the ruling by a low level, bottom-rung district judge in San Francisco setting aside the president’s completely lawful executive order suspending immigration from six jihadi-prone Muslim nations. This judge paralyzed the entire government of the United States with no constitutional warrant or justification and made us vulnerable to terrorism at the same time. And everybody let him do it. Then another federal judge in Hawaii did the same thing. And everybody let him get away with it, too.

Then a federal judge in Northern California, William Orrick, forbade the Department of Justice to withhold grants from jurisdictions which proudly and defiantly break federal law by harboring i*****l a***n criminals and refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement....
It Looks Like We Are Down To One Branch Of Governm... (show quote)


The Court is tasked with ensuring that all laws follow the Constitution, it was never granted the power to MAKE law - except - the Congress has in fact empowered that court to do so. Finding it difficult to legislate ideology, both party's sought to load the court with ideologues, to support their attempts to do so. In theory, Federal judges, especially the Supreme Court bench, are to be non partisan and non ideological - but that theory is disproven every time a new Justice is named.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate law and politics, not even on paper anymore, since most politicians are lawyers and make no bones about it. The US Constitution is nether conservative nor liberal, neither Democratic nor Republican - yet every successive Congress and POTUS has done their level best to MAKE it one or the other. When one side passes legislation - the other side asks the court to intervene and side with them - providing the pressure to load the court.

Congress abrogated it's right to legislate, giving it to SCOTUS.

Reply
May 8, 2017 21:02:46   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
lpnmajor wrote:
The Court is tasked with ensuring that all laws follow the Constitution, it was never granted the power to MAKE law - except - the Congress has in fact empowered that court to do so. Finding it difficult to legislate ideology, both party's sought to load the court with ideologues, to support their attempts to do so. In theory, Federal judges, especially the Supreme Court bench, are to be non partisan and non ideological - but that theory is disproven every time a new Justice is named.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate law and politics, not even on paper anymore, since most politicians are lawyers and make no bones about it. The US Constitution is nether conservative nor liberal, neither Democratic nor Republican - yet every successive Congress and POTUS has done their level best to MAKE it one or the other. When one side passes legislation - the other side asks the court to intervene and side with them - providing the pressure to load the court.

Congress abrogated it's right to legislate, giving it to SCOTUS.
The Court is tasked with ensuring that all laws fo... (show quote)

Yep

Reply
 
 
Jan 28, 2019 11:09:59   #
Turk182
 
Art. I, Sec. 8, # 17. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind wh**ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

There has never been any attorney that had the consent of congress. That means all attorneys in congress are committing treason against the United States. That includes judges and prosecutors.

Semper Fi

Reply
Jan 28, 2019 13:10:53   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Turk182 wrote:
Art. I, Sec. 8, # 17. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind wh**ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

There has never been any attorney that had the consent of congress. That means all attorneys in congress are committing treason against the United States. That includes judges and prosecutors.

Semper Fi
Art. I, Sec. 8, # 17. No Title of Nobility shall ... (show quote)


Yep!
The American Bar Association (ABA)
Is a good example of why it is in the Constitution

Art. I, Sec. 8, # 17. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind wh**ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Most people do not know that our judicial system has been high jacked by admiralty jurisdiction.
It does not answer to the Constitution.
The f**g in all court rooms has the US f**g with gold fringe.
That is the Admiralty f**g.
I wonder what f**g is used in the Supreme Court?

Reply
Jan 28, 2019 14:10:24   #
Turk182
 
Why would the U.S. have C*******ts Goals if it was not a C*******t Government?

C*******T GOALS (From The Congressional Record, Jan. 10, 1963)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922684/posts


Semper Fi

Reply
Jan 28, 2019 15:55:32   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Turk182 wrote:
Why would the U.S. have C*******ts Goals if it was not a C*******t Government?

C*******T GOALS (From The Congressional Record, Jan. 10, 1963)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922684/posts


Semper Fi


"Why would the U.S. have C*******ts Goals if it was not a C*******t Government?

C*******T GOALS (From The Congressional Record, Jan. 10, 1963)" - Turk182

All that to show we have had some L*****ts and L*****t causes in our government?

Big Money/Bankers (Banking/Free money creation) uses both ends of the spectrum to get what is good for them.

Controlling the MSM helps them to get away with it.
Filling BOTH parties with their plants gets it done also.

A couple Council on Foreign Relations CFR & Trilateral Commission TC Quotes*
“An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal attack" – Richard Gardner , Ambassador to Italy - (CFR) Foreign Affairs, April, 1974

“Actions at the multinational level will be needed, if the process of international relocation of industries is to be accelerated in an organized fashion.” TC Report #23, 1982
The Banksters control both parties by installing vetted CFR members
Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.
Zbigniew Brzezinski formed Trilateral Commission for David Rockefeller in 1973, and Jimmy Carter was made a founding member. Jimmy Carter became President, & ZB was installed as Carter's National Security Adviser. (ZB was also adviser to Obama)
ZB - Referring to the rivalry between the USSR and the United States – “The eventual outcome of the competition is however, foreordained, given the inherent superiority of the c*******t system “ 'Between Two Ages' (1970 - p.146)

“The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.” – Senator Louis T. McFadden (22 years on the U.S. Banking & Currency Commission) Google : Louis T. McFadden, Congressional Record, Fed expose

CFR Roster Source: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall1.htm#d

A few more notables in Both Parties Serving Bilderberger’s CFR/TC/BB AGENDA:

Both Bushes - CFR,B (R)
Dick Cheney - CFR,TC (R)
Both Clintons - CFR,TC,B (D)
Albert Gore, Jr. CFR (D)
Obama & Biden - CFR (D
Jimmy Carter - CFR,TC (D)
Newt Gingrich - CFR (R)
Mitch McConnell - CFR (R)
Heidi Cruz - CFR (R)
Rick Perry - BB (D&R)
John Kerry CFR (D)
John McCain - CFR (R)
Condoleezza Rice CFR/84 (R)
Zbig Brzezinski - TC, BB (D)
H. Kissinger - CFR,TC,BB ( R) Paul Volker- CFR,TC,BB (D) Alan Greenspan CFR,TC, BB
Ben Bernanke - BB
Tim Geithner - CFR,TC BB
George Soros - CFR,BB
Donald Rumsfeld CFR ,BB(R)
Jacob “Jack” Lew CFR (D)
David Rockefeller CFR,TC,BB
Jerome H. Powell (Fed Chairman) CFR

THE MEDIA:

George Will - CFR,TC (R)
Katherine A. "Katie" Couric CFR
George Stephanopoulos
CFR, BB (D)
William Kristol BB (R) William Buckley Jr. CFR,BB (R)
Tom Brokaw CFR
FOX owner
Rupert Murdock – CFR, BB
FOX SPINNERS
John Bolton CFR (R)
Dick Morris (D&R)
Charles Krauthammer CFR
Washington Post owner
Katherine Graham CFR,TC,BB

David Richmond Gergen - CNN SPINNER BB/CFR/TC/92
Robert B. Reich CFR

Brian Williams - CFR
Larry Kudlow - CFR’88


Military
General David Petraeus CFR,
X-CIA Director
Chuck Hagel CFR
Colin Powell CFR/BB’86




In the News:
Haley Barbour CFR
Eric Holder CFR
Larry Summers CFR, BB
Janet Yellen CFR
Jeh Johnson CFR
Ashton Carter CFR/92
Chuck Hagel CFR

More Politicians:

Fred Thompson CFR (R)
Charles B. Rangel CFR (D)
Barney Frank CFR (D)
Richard Newton Gardner CFR/RS/TC/84
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D) CFR/92
Sandra Day O'Connor (R) CFR/92
Neil M. Gorsuch? CFR (R)
Madeleine Albright CFR (D)

Robert S. Mcnamara CFR (D)
Warren Christopher CFR (D)
Madeleine Albright CFR (D)
Samuel Richard ("Sandy") Berger CFR/BB



International Bankers

JamesWolfensohn BB,CFR,TC

Paul Wolfowitz BB,CFR,TC
dov zakheim 9/11 mastermind

Obama’s Executive Cabinet members:

Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden CFR/88

Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham BB/CFR/RS/TC –
See Hillary’s speaches at CFR meeting on Youtube


Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner BB/CFR/TC/09
NOW: Jacob “Jack” Lew CFR


Department of Defense
Secretary Leon E. Panetta?
Need to research his background
Chuck Hagel CFR

CFR Foreign Policy;
General Wesley Clark explains ISIS was created by U.S. Allies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojcoKnTGf4s

Reply
 
 
Jan 28, 2019 16:39:53   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
We let them by not demanding strict adherence and then b***h about it but don’t force the issue..
They do make the rulings and Congress makes the law and the President signs it or not....

The key issue is the three bodies of government that work “together”....

The Judicial part of our federal government includes the Supreme Court..They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution or are only suppose to that is..The highest court in the land with lower level Federal judges in the states...
How did we get where we are?? Well, the Supreme Court being the highest rules and that ruling lays the foundation for laws to be drafted or not.. Knowing how the Supreme Court ruled lends strong conviction of how they will rule on another such case or at least close to it and stymies lower courts ruling other than what was ruled on by the SCOTUS.. The domino effect....

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government.

And the Constitution itself, specifically in Article III, states: “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...

Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it and requires all three bodies to ensure all decisions by the house and SCOTUS holds agreement within all three branches....

Not the best but not the worst either and it has worked for a very long time... What would you suggest, Eagle??


quote=eagleye13]It Looks Like We Are Down To One Branch Of Government
SCOTUS OPERATES UNLAWFULLY
by Pat Shannan
http://www.ini-world-report.org/2017/05/02/scotus-operates-unlawfully/

The Founders crafted for us a Constitution that establishes three separate and distinct branches of government: a legislative branch to pass laws, an executive branch to enforce them, and a judicial branch to use those laws to settle disputes.

Although the standard mantra is that they were designed to be “co-equal” branches of government, that’s not what the Founders intended. The legislative branch is intended to be the supreme branch of government, since it and it alone has the authority to make laws.

The very first words in the Constitution, after the Preamble, are these (emphasis mine): “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The word “all” in the phrase “all legislative Powers” means all. As in every last little bit of it. According to the Founders’ Constitution, then, how much legislative power does the executive branch have? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It’s the job of the executive branch to implement laws, not to make them.

More to the point, how much legislative power does the judicial branch have, according to the Founders’ Constitution? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It has been given absolutely zero authority to make law, to change law, or to rewrite law. It is thus impossible, if we are governed by the Founders’ Constitution, for the Supreme Court ever to create “the law of the land” about anything whatsoever. A Supreme Court “opinion” (that’s what the Supreme Court itself calls them – not “rulings” or “laws” but “opinions”) cannot possibly under any faithful construction of the Constitution create law.

Is a******n “the law of the land?” Absolutely not. Is sodomy-based marriage “the law of the land?” Absolutely not. The Court was never, ever given that kind of power by the Founders’ Constitution.

So how did we reach the place where nobody knows what the “law of the land” is until the Supreme Court rules? How did we get to the place where we all must hold our breath and cross our fingers and hope the Court stumbles into the t***h? How did the Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power? The answer is easy: the Court stole it.

And we let them do it. And we continue to let them get away with it.The root of this pernicious state of affairs goes all the way back to 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall invented the concept of “judicial review” magically out of the ether. There is no place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is given the authority to decide what the law is and to decide what laws are constitutional and which ones aren’t.

Two recent and glaring overreaches of the federal judiciary exemplify this twisted state of affairs. One is the ruling by a low level, bottom-rung district judge in San Francisco setting aside the president’s completely lawful executive order suspending immigration from six jihadi-prone Muslim nations. This judge paralyzed the entire government of the United States with no constitutional warrant or justification and made us vulnerable to terrorism at the same time. And everybody let him do it. Then another federal judge in Hawaii did the same thing. And everybody let him get away with it, too.

Then a federal judge in Northern California, William Orrick, forbade the Department of Justice to withhold grants from jurisdictions which proudly and defiantly break federal law by harboring i*****l a***n criminals and refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement....[/quote]

Reply
Jan 28, 2019 16:59:09   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Turk182 wrote:
Why would the U.S. have C*******ts Goals if it was not a C*******t Government?

C*******T GOALS (From The Congressional Record, Jan. 10, 1963)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922684/posts


Semper Fi


Things change~~Not always for the good.. Look at the declared Socialist alread in place from our federal reps sitting on the hill to local states level and ask, Why???

By the numbers: Democratic socialist victories in the 2018 midterms..

the numbers: The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has grown from 7,000 members to 50,000 since President Trump was elected.

At least 46 Democratic socialist candidates and two DSA-backed b****t measures have won their primaries in 2018, according to a list compiled by the DSA.

Of those, 14 were endorsed by the national DSA chapter (but the other were endorsed by their local chapter.)
Four of their candidates are running for U.S. House; the rest are running for state-level office, like state House, state Senate, and city council.
Some DSA victories this cycle include:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar in New York

James Thompson in Kansas
Rashida Tlaib in Michigan
Sarah Smith in Washington
Four women in Pennsylvania, all backed by the Philly chapter of DSA, won their primaries for state House: Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato both unseated longtime Democratic incumbents, and Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale won their races.
Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic socialist darling of 2018, has endorsed at least five candidates outside of DSA who have won their primaries, including Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts, Ben Jealous in Maryland, Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Andrew Gillum in Florida and Ilhan Omar in Minnesota.

The bottom line: The Democratic socialist movement is growing at every level of government.
Plenty more to read..., <snip>

https://www.axios.com/democratic-socialist-candidates-who-have-won-in-2018-midterms-6bf604a3-ee98-4ab3-9e63-349aec324c43.html

Reply
Jan 29, 2019 13:34:24   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
lindajoy wrote:
Things change~~Not always for the good.. Look at the declared Socialist alread in place from our federal reps sitting on the hill to local states level and ask, Why???

By the numbers: Democratic socialist victories in the 2018 midterms..

the numbers: The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has grown from 7,000 members to 50,000 since President Trump was elected.

At least 46 Democratic socialist candidates and two DSA-backed b****t measures have won their primaries in 2018, according to a list compiled by the DSA.

Of those, 14 were endorsed by the national DSA chapter (but the other were endorsed by their local chapter.)
Four of their candidates are running for U.S. House; the rest are running for state-level office, like state House, state Senate, and city council.
Some DSA victories this cycle include:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar in New York

James Thompson in Kansas
Rashida Tlaib in Michigan
Sarah Smith in Washington
Four women in Pennsylvania, all backed by the Philly chapter of DSA, won their primaries for state House: Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato both unseated longtime Democratic incumbents, and Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale won their races.
Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic socialist darling of 2018, has endorsed at least five candidates outside of DSA who have won their primaries, including Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts, Ben Jealous in Maryland, Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Andrew Gillum in Florida and Ilhan Omar in Minnesota.

The bottom line: The Democratic socialist movement is growing at every level of government.
Plenty more to read..., <snip>

https://www.axios.com/democratic-socialist-candidates-who-have-won-in-2018-midterms-6bf604a3-ee98-4ab3-9e63-349aec324c43.html
Things change~~Not always for the good.. Look at t... (show quote)


This is happening because of the liberal education our students are receiving, and the constant MSM liberal propaganda.

Our students are being taught that socialism is good.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.