Its time to remove trump immediately (Page 4): The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle of the "Consent of the Governed" ”As Americans celebrated the 242nd anniversary of their...

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

woodguru wrote:

So now the right believes the supreme court can be ignored by the president if he doesn't agree with them? And keep in mind this is a conservative court.

The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle of the "Consent of the Governed"

”As Americans celebrated the 242nd anniversary of their secession from Great Britain, references to the Declaration of Independence ratified on July 4, 1776 were many. But while the left reminded us “all men are created equal” and the right reminded us that all inalienable rights come from our Creator, far too little attention was paid to another phrase in Jefferson’s famous preamble: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Judging from the way most Americans talk, almost no one remembers how that consent is supposedly obtained.

Hint: It isn’t from v****g in e******ns, but that’s what most Americans seem to believe. According to this narrative, representatives are elected democratically, and by casting one’s v**e, one consents to wh**ever legislation the representatives who win the e******n choose to pass, or wh**ever executive actions the elected president chooses to take. In the aftermath of Obamacare’s passage, surrogates for President Obama often justified that new federal endeavor with the quip, “That’s why we have e******ns.” Conservatives employ the same reasoning when their candidates win.

That raises the question: Why did the framers bother with Sections 8, 9 and 10 in Article I, Sections 2, 3 and 4 in Article II, or Sections 2 and 3 of Article III? Why did they include Article V at all?

The answer is that the aforementioned sections define the list of powers the people were consenting to, all others being reserved to the states or the people, while Article V was provided as the one and only means for the people to consent to any new powers. Put another way, any power exercised by the federal government that is not among those delegated in the Constitution is power exercised without the consent of the governed.

So, determining what the federal government should do is not “why we have e******ns.” E******ns merely decide who will exercise powers already granted.

Even this standard for establishing consent of the governed requires an extremely elastic interpretation of the word “consent.” In the end, ratification of the Constitution itself and subsequent amendments were just another series of majority v**es, each posing all the dangers to individual rights that any democratic process poses. That makes legislating without meeting even this low standard for consent even more egregious.

The word “unconstitutional” tends to obscure what’s really going on when the black robed high priests in Washington retire to deliberate on some new constitutional challenge. It’s such a stuffy, academic-sounding word that well-meaning people probably honestly believe it’s better left to the finest legal minds to determine. But what judicial review really purports to do is determine if anyone ever consented to the power being exercised by the law or executive action in question. And if the power is not listed in the original Constitution or a subsequent amendment, the answer is “no.”

That means that when the Supreme Court ruled as “constitutional” Social Security, Medicare, federal drug laws and myriad other federal legislation, it was ruling that the ratifying conventions of 1787-90 consented to the federal government having those powers right from the beginning.

That seems ludicrous, doesn’t it?

The Constitution is not written in a dead foreign language or legalese. It’s written in plain English, in a manner “We the People” can understand. It doesn’t take the finest legal minds in the country to determine which powers are granted and which are not. It’s all there in black and white. In fact, because it’s so unambiguously written, the court has had to rule constitutional most of what the federal government does outside of the military under the power granted in the Commerce Clause, which was originally proposed and ratified mainly in reaction to states erecting their own tariffs.

The assertion that by granting the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, 18th-century Americans were consenting to allow the federal government to force them to participate in a federal pension program, monopolize all health insurance for people over 65 years of age, prohibit possession or ingestion of certain plants, and even to mandate how much water Americans could have in their toilet bowls, is absurd. With few exceptions, the history of judicial review is the history of an unelected group of judges lending legitimacy and legal sanction to the federal government seizing vast new powers without the consent of the governed.

Prior to Donald Trump’s e******n, this writer heard from many conservatives and libertarians that they would v**e for Trump solely based on their fear that Hillary Clinton could appoint replacements for several aging SCOTUS judges. Many believed the ancient right to bear arms could be lost based solely on this. Two years into Trump’s term, with one appointment confirmed and Anthony Kennedy retiring from the Court, liberals now decry the imminent threat to “reproductive rights,” gay marriage and other progressive pillars. Their rhetoric and actions are becoming increasingly violent.

Surely, the founders never intended for the e******n of one man or woman to so profoundly change the legal framework of the entire nation, one way or another. This is the fruit of violating not only a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, but for violating the fundamental principle that underpins the entire document: that the federal government will exercise no power not delegated to it, i.e., without the consent of the governed.

Strict constructionists since Jefferson have argued even judicial review itself is a power nowhere delegated to the federal government. That’s one of the very few powers upon which there is room for argument on both sides. But whether the power was granted or not, history clearly shows it has been used to undermine one of the most important principles of the American republic.

Here’s a useful rule of thumb. If it takes nine judges dozens of pages of legalese to explain how the Constitution grants a power in question to the federal government, then we should assume the power isn’t there. If there is any question at all, an amendment to the Constitution should be offered to determine if the people really do consent. That goes for all previous rulings by SCOTUS on constitutionality. If we really believe in consent of the governed, why not be sure?

Most of what the federal government currently does wouldn’t pass the test. That probably scares the heck out of a lot of people, but it really shouldn’t. It would simply allow blue states to govern themselves in much bluer fashion and red states to do so in much redder fashion. That’s by no means a perfect solution, but it would be highly preferable to the imminent civil unrest—or worse—Americans currently face as a result of letting the federal government do wh**ever it wants.”

By: Tom Mullen (2018)

(He is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom's writing, visit www.tommullen.net.)

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

The Critical Critic wrote:

The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle of the "Consent of the Governed"

”As Americans celebrated the 242nd anniversary of their secession from Great Britain, references to the Declaration of Independence ratified on July 4, 1776 were many. But while the left reminded us “all men are created equal” and the right reminded us that all inalienable rights come from our Creator, far too little attention was paid to another phrase in Jefferson’s famous preamble: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Judging from the way most Americans talk, almost no one remembers how that consent is supposedly obtained.

Hint: It isn’t from v****g in e******ns, but that’s what most Americans seem to believe. According to this narrative, representatives are elected democratically, and by casting one’s v**e, one consents to wh**ever legislation the representatives who win the e******n choose to pass, or wh**ever executive actions the elected president chooses to take. In the aftermath of Obamacare’s passage, surrogates for President Obama often justified that new federal endeavor with the quip, “That’s why we have e******ns.” Conservatives employ the same reasoning when their candidates win.

That raises the question: Why did the framers bother with Sections 8, 9 and 10 in Article I, Sections 2, 3 and 4 in Article II, or Sections 2 and 3 of Article III? Why did they include Article V at all?

The answer is that the aforementioned sections define the list of powers the people were consenting to, all others being reserved to the states or the people, while Article V was provided as the one and only means for the people to consent to any new powers. Put another way, any power exercised by the federal government that is not among those delegated in the Constitution is power exercised without the consent of the governed.

So, determining what the federal government should do is not “why we have e******ns.” E******ns merely decide who will exercise powers already granted.

Even this standard for establishing consent of the governed requires an extremely elastic interpretation of the word “consent.” In the end, ratification of the Constitution itself and subsequent amendments were just another series of majority v**es, each posing all the dangers to individual rights that any democratic process poses. That makes legislating without meeting even this low standard for consent even more egregious.

The word “unconstitutional” tends to obscure what’s really going on when the black robed high priests in Washington retire to deliberate on some new constitutional challenge. It’s such a stuffy, academic-sounding word that well-meaning people probably honestly believe it’s better left to the finest legal minds to determine. But what judicial review really purports to do is determine if anyone ever consented to the power being exercised by the law or executive action in question. And if the power is not listed in the original Constitution or a subsequent amendment, the answer is “no.”

That means that when the Supreme Court ruled as “constitutional” Social Security, Medicare, federal drug laws and myriad other federal legislation, it was ruling that the ratifying conventions of 1787-90 consented to the federal government having those powers right from the beginning.

That seems ludicrous, doesn’t it?

The Constitution is not written in a dead foreign language or legalese. It’s written in plain English, in a manner “We the People” can understand. It doesn’t take the finest legal minds in the country to determine which powers are granted and which are not. It’s all there in black and white. In fact, because it’s so unambiguously written, the court has had to rule constitutional most of what the federal government does outside of the military under the power granted in the Commerce Clause, which was originally proposed and ratified mainly in reaction to states erecting their own tariffs.

The assertion that by granting the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, 18th-century Americans were consenting to allow the federal government to force them to participate in a federal pension program, monopolize all health insurance for people over 65 years of age, prohibit possession or ingestion of certain plants, and even to mandate how much water Americans could have in their toilet bowls, is absurd. With few exceptions, the history of judicial review is the history of an unelected group of judges lending legitimacy and legal sanction to the federal government seizing vast new powers without the consent of the governed.

Prior to Donald Trump’s e******n, this writer heard from many conservatives and libertarians that they would v**e for Trump solely based on their fear that Hillary Clinton could appoint replacements for several aging SCOTUS judges. Many believed the ancient right to bear arms could be lost based solely on this. Two years into Trump’s term, with one appointment confirmed and Anthony Kennedy retiring from the Court, liberals now decry the imminent threat to “reproductive rights,” gay marriage and other progressive pillars. Their rhetoric and actions are becoming increasingly violent.

Surely, the founders never intended for the e******n of one man or woman to so profoundly change the legal framework of the entire nation, one way or another. This is the fruit of violating not only a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, but for violating the fundamental principle that underpins the entire document: that the federal government will exercise no power not delegated to it, i.e., without the consent of the governed.

Strict constructionists since Jefferson have argued even judicial review itself is a power nowhere delegated to the federal government. That’s one of the very few powers upon which there is room for argument on both sides. But whether the power was granted or not, history clearly shows it has been used to undermine one of the most important principles of the American republic.

Here’s a useful rule of thumb. If it takes nine judges dozens of pages of legalese to explain how the Constitution grants a power in question to the federal government, then we should assume the power isn’t there. If there is any question at all, an amendment to the Constitution should be offered to determine if the people really do consent. That goes for all previous rulings by SCOTUS on constitutionality. If we really believe in consent of the governed, why not be sure?

Most of what the federal government currently does wouldn’t pass the test. That probably scares the heck out of a lot of people, but it really shouldn’t. It would simply allow blue states to govern themselves in much bluer fashion and red states to do so in much redder fashion. That’s by no means a perfect solution, but it would be highly preferable to the imminent civil unrest—or worse—Americans currently face as a result of letting the federal government do wh**ever it wants.”

By: Tom Mullen (2018)

(He is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom's writing, visit www.tommullen.net.)

b The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle o... (show quote)

Awesome post. It's amazing how the t***h is so easily understood.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

byronglimish wrote:

Awesome post. It's amazing how the t***h is so easily understood.

Thanks Byron.

Radiance3

The Critical Critic wrote:

The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle of the "Consent of the Governed"

”As Americans celebrated the 242nd anniversary of their secession from Great Britain, references to the Declaration of Independence ratified on July 4, 1776 were many. But while the left reminded us “all men are created equal” and the right reminded us that all inalienable rights come from our Creator, far too little attention was paid to another phrase in Jefferson’s famous preamble: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Judging from the way most Americans talk, almost no one remembers how that consent is supposedly obtained.

Hint: It isn’t from v****g in e******ns, but that’s what most Americans seem to believe. According to this narrative, representatives are elected democratically, and by casting one’s v**e, one consents to wh**ever legislation the representatives who win the e******n choose to pass, or wh**ever executive actions the elected president chooses to take. In the aftermath of Obamacare’s passage, surrogates for President Obama often justified that new federal endeavor with the quip, “That’s why we have e******ns.” Conservatives employ the same reasoning when their candidates win.

That raises the question: Why did the framers bother with Sections 8, 9 and 10 in Article I, Sections 2, 3 and 4 in Article II, or Sections 2 and 3 of Article III? Why did they include Article V at all?

The answer is that the aforementioned sections define the list of powers the people were consenting to, all others being reserved to the states or the people, while Article V was provided as the one and only means for the people to consent to any new powers. Put another way, any power exercised by the federal government that is not among those delegated in the Constitution is power exercised without the consent of the governed.

So, determining what the federal government should do is not “why we have e******ns.” E******ns merely decide who will exercise powers already granted.

Even this standard for establishing consent of the governed requires an extremely elastic interpretation of the word “consent.” In the end, ratification of the Constitution itself and subsequent amendments were just another series of majority v**es, each posing all the dangers to individual rights that any democratic process poses. That makes legislating without meeting even this low standard for consent even more egregious.

The word “unconstitutional” tends to obscure what’s really going on when the black robed high priests in Washington retire to deliberate on some new constitutional challenge. It’s such a stuffy, academic-sounding word that well-meaning people probably honestly believe it’s better left to the finest legal minds to determine. But what judicial review really purports to do is determine if anyone ever consented to the power being exercised by the law or executive action in question. And if the power is not listed in the original Constitution or a subsequent amendment, the answer is “no.”

That means that when the Supreme Court ruled as “constitutional” Social Security, Medicare, federal drug laws and myriad other federal legislation, it was ruling that the ratifying conventions of 1787-90 consented to the federal government having those powers right from the beginning.

That seems ludicrous, doesn’t it?

The Constitution is not written in a dead foreign language or legalese. It’s written in plain English, in a manner “We the People” can understand. It doesn’t take the finest legal minds in the country to determine which powers are granted and which are not. It’s all there in black and white. In fact, because it’s so unambiguously written, the court has had to rule constitutional most of what the federal government does outside of the military under the power granted in the Commerce Clause, which was originally proposed and ratified mainly in reaction to states erecting their own tariffs.

The assertion that by granting the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, 18th-century Americans were consenting to allow the federal government to force them to participate in a federal pension program, monopolize all health insurance for people over 65 years of age, prohibit possession or ingestion of certain plants, and even to mandate how much water Americans could have in their toilet bowls, is absurd. With few exceptions, the history of judicial review is the history of an unelected group of judges lending legitimacy and legal sanction to the federal government seizing vast new powers without the consent of the governed.

Prior to Donald Trump’s e******n, this writer heard from many conservatives and libertarians that they would v**e for Trump solely based on their fear that Hillary Clinton could appoint replacements for several aging SCOTUS judges. Many believed the ancient right to bear arms could be lost based solely on this. Two years into Trump’s term, with one appointment confirmed and Anthony Kennedy retiring from the Court, liberals now decry the imminent threat to “reproductive rights,” gay marriage and other progressive pillars. Their rhetoric and actions are becoming increasingly violent.

Surely, the founders never intended for the e******n of one man or woman to so profoundly change the legal framework of the entire nation, one way or another. This is the fruit of violating not only a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, but for violating the fundamental principle that underpins the entire document: that the federal government will exercise no power not delegated to it, i.e., without the consent of the governed.

Strict constructionists since Jefferson have argued even judicial review itself is a power nowhere delegated to the federal government. That’s one of the very few powers upon which there is room for argument on both sides. But whether the power was granted or not, history clearly shows it has been used to undermine one of the most important principles of the American republic.

Here’s a useful rule of thumb. If it takes nine judges dozens of pages of legalese to explain how the Constitution grants a power in question to the federal government, then we should assume the power isn’t there. If there is any question at all, an amendment to the Constitution should be offered to determine if the people really do consent. That goes for all previous rulings by SCOTUS on constitutionality. If we really believe in consent of the governed, why not be sure?

Most of what the federal government currently does wouldn’t pass the test. That probably scares the heck out of a lot of people, but it really shouldn’t. It would simply allow blue states to govern themselves in much bluer fashion and red states to do so in much redder fashion. That’s by no means a perfect solution, but it would be highly preferable to the imminent civil unrest—or worse—Americans currently face as a result of letting the federal government do wh**ever it wants.”

By: Tom Mullen (2018)

(He is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom's writing, visit www.tommullen.net.)

b The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle o... (show quote)

==============
Fact of the matter is, since 2009, Obama had changed the whole thing to "Political Correctness", and "Change you can believe in". The socialist democrats have been erasing history.

I wonder what happens if they take the WH, and Congress in 2020. DEMS want to increase the SC to 10. They have hidden list of SC Justice candidates to nominate to the post once they take the WH. For 10 SC Justices, the radical DEMS could place two liberal brain Justices. Ginsburg will certainly retire if Socialist Dem takes the WH in 2020. They will have 6 liberal Justices. Socialist Dems will rule forever.

When the SC turns political, the consent of the governed is totally gone.
The constitution becomes politically correct. Barack wins.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

JFlorio wrote:

Good reason for you to move to France. There GDP’s around 1.5%. They also short NATO on their commitment. Kinda how your parents shorted you on I.Q..

France spends less because people go to other countries for treatment rather than wait to die first. This way no money gets spent on those who need it the most. No wonder they spend less on healthcare.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Carol Kelly wrote:

I’m with Trump all the way. The Democrats don’t want the citizenship spot on the census in order to do more redistricting and then give i******s the v**e. Method in their madness. It still has the race question. Isnt that r****t?

I want my r********ns for having supported a bunch of lowlife l*****ts who can't or don't want to work because they got a worthless Ph.D. in "Medieval Lesbianism in the Wiccan Community" and now live in their mommies' basement eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew! To be eligible for r********ns you have to have been directly impacted by past practices, not several generations removed.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Radiance3 wrote:

============ br I Building Barack care a website ... (show quote)

I mostly blame Pelosi and the rest of her sycophant Democrats that passed the AHA bill. Obama only signed it into law. And no one read it.

Radiance3

dtucker300 wrote:

I mostly blame Pelosi and the rest of her sycophant Democrats that passed the AHA bill. Obama only signed it into law. And no one read it.

==============
The Obama Care when passed in Congress were 2300 pages. None among the Democrat Congressmen read the bill. Pelosi asked them to sign before they read it.

No Republicans v**ed for the Obama Care. It went thru SC when the liberal Justice Roberts called the tax law.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/05/12/the-obamacare-tax-that-chief-justice-roberts-invented-is-still-unconstitutional/\

Thus all those young healthy professionals who did not participate on the BO Care were required to pay in the form of tax penalty. 6.7 million, 4.5% of taxpayers paid the penalty.

**President Trump had removed the penalty law.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Lonewolf wrote:

He will go down in history as a t*****r job numbers are going done wages are down consumer prices up. Farmers going under he's making a mess of this country..
Twitter was on fire this morning with happy 4th Mr president Obama, second was happy 4th to some nk or Nam rapper and finally trump .what does that tell you.

LOL! How you going to spin this? June job numbers higher than expected. Over $200,000 created. Great job numbers.

Carol Kelly

woodguru wrote:

So now the right believes the supreme court can be ignored by the president if he doesn't agree with them? And keep in mind this is a conservative court.

It really isn’t a CONSERVATIVE court and it is really not supposed to be political.
We all know why citizenship should be on the census. The reason that the Supremes gave for giving it the thumbs down was not a sensible, non political decision. Why is race still on?

Smedley_buzkill

Carol Kelly wrote:

It really isn’t a CONSERVATIVE court and it is really not supposed to be political.
We all know why citizenship should be on the census. The reason that the Supremes gave for giving it the thumbs down was not a sensible, non political decision. Why is race still on?

Woodglue is not smart enough to realize that the SCOTUS did not make a decision, but kicked it back down to the lower courts for a more definite statement..

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Radiance3 wrote:

============== br I Fact of the matter is, since ... (show quote)

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Lonewolf wrote:

France gives all citizens healthcare and spends 3 billion less than we do.

I thought obamacare REDUCED the us healthcare costs to an acceptable level, ... or at least, that's what the turd-in-a-suit at the Whitehouse said a few years ago, to get his piece of crap legislation passed.

jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

Jimmy Boy wrote:

Wolf , keep it to the point! Be nice, we all bleed when we are cut! Lets have facts not wishes of what we would like to see ! The lies Mr. Obama told and the BAD THINGS HE DID to certain groups of people, the tea party! B******i, fast and furious, covering for Hillary, giving the computer work for the Obama health care to his wife's collage friends! And they screwed it up and cost us MILLIONS!!!!!!! All facts real facts! And a hell of a lot more!Facts please! All the best

👍👍👍👍

jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

drlarrygino wrote:

You are of course talking about the 24 million i******s that love it and we are all paying for it! That of course sounds like a good deal from you since you probably are an illegal.

Only the super rich could afford it. $10,000 deductible, may as well die, most people don't have 10 grand to spend before you can have an operation. I just had surgery on my index finger, sndthe hospital bill was almost $22,000! That is so crazy. The surgeon fee was $1800, on top of the hospital bill. Obamacare was a joke for most.