oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

So few words and so much said. They have nearly destroyed our entire system of checks and balances and it hasn't been Obama and his people who have done it. Boehner and too many like him have destroyed the legislative - executive balance and it appears to me that the establishment GOP people are working at all times with the same kind from the other side.

Our system of b****ting is pretty near dead unless we find a way to take it away from the corrupt people who have pretty well taken over.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

The problem isn't corrupt people, as they've always been around. I agree that the system is unbalanced. I agree the imbalance of our system is the problem. I do not know what the solution is. The authors of our constitution balanced the system by channeling natural desires for power into three equal and separate powers. Each would seek supremacy creating balance. Too much power is held in the executive branch.
The solution is not term limits, because term limits limit v**er decisions and prevent power from gathering in the legislative branch. Term limits k**l legislative power. Legislative power is not sufficiently powerful to balance the executive power.

A successful impeachment of a reigning president would shift power from the executive to the legislative. We just don't seem to have any leaders in the legislature capable of pulling off such a move.

The judicial power is quite massive, and has shown itself as such. It is however precariously balanced along ideological lines at the moment. If that balance were to shift, it may very well be able to nullify both executive and legislative powers seemingly overnight.

Too much power is held by both judicial and executive powers, while the legislative power is terribly weak. The legislative power isn't balanced ideologically or otherwise. It is weak, emaciated, starved of power. There are ways it could recover and very quickly. But term limits will definitely prevent that recovery.

There is the other possibility of state power balancing federal power. And that is much closer than many people realize. The problem is what a state opposes and how. We don't need any Fort Sumter reenactments with live munitions. Obamacare does present an opportunity for just such a purpose.

Yankee Clipper

[quote=Tasine]Yankee Clipperin bold. I have no doubt this bit of t***h will also be swept under the political rug by both major parties and the entire media. [b]The GOP a long time ago signed an agreement to not sue or contest v***r f***d. So they are legally prevented to fight it.[\b]The Democrat Party ran a s**m on the American public because IT KNEW IT COULD AND IT KNEW NO ONE WOULD STOP THEM.

NOW WE ALL KNOW how much our government is willing to protect its citizens. IT WON'T EVEN SPEAK FOR US, LET ALONE RISK SOMETHING. I've said dozens of times on dozens of articles and threads that we no longer have a constitutional OR a representative government - therefore WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR SUCH AND WHY ARE WE OBEYING OPPRESSIVE LAWS THAT ARE IN REALITY UNCONSTITUTIONAL? THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE TOO TAINTED AND TOO CORRUPT TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE, BUT WE CITIZENS ARE NOT TOO CORRUPT. WE WANT A TRIAL, AND WOULD PREFER IT BE BROUGHT BY OUR GOVERNMENT, BUT IT OUR GOVERNMENT WON'T DO THAT, I INSIST CITIZENS SHOULD HOLD A CITIZENS' COURT HEARING, WITH TV CAMERAS RUNNING. IF WE CITIZENS FIND GUILT, WHO IN THIS SHAM GOVERNMENT COULD POSSIBLY PREVENT US FROM TAKING ACTION? AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE WHAT THIS SHAM GOVERNMENT THINKS, SAYS, OR DOES? Changing the government requires starting a the local precinct level and taking over the county executive committees for both parties. That's how the Marxist took over the democrat party.

We citizens signed on for a constitutional representative government, and merely CALLING a government while using it in another way, does not MAKE a constitutional representative government. I believe a trial could prove that we owe NO allegiance to this government or anyone within it. Our government has been hi-jacked. That should not be the equivalent as the entire citizenry and their capital could also be hi-jacked. If we allow it, the onus is on us.Unfortunately we could never get a fair trial and would set a precedent to prevent future attempts to fix things in court. Again start changing things locally.[/quote]

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

Four Americans were murdered to cover up the massive v***r f***d conducted by the Obama administration during the last P**********l e******ns.

Yankee Clipper

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

I don't disagree with you, but do we have time for that? I fully expect collapse within the year, and something should be in place for that. I feel that as true disaster is imminent, so should a solid basic plan. I believe chaos is expected by the ptb, not only expected, but required for certain people's plans to work.

There is a LOT more at work here than the average person even imagines - at least that's MY thought.

Landsharkxray

You state that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary and misleading. Now I understand your difficulty comprehending the statements and arguments of other comments. The first ten Articles of Amendment were designed to clarify and protect the rights of the people and the states and to protect the people from both federal and state governments. The original body of the Constitution describes the duties and authorities of the federal government and the manner in which those serving in it shall arise to and maintain office. The selective prosecution of either, as we have experienced these past decades, leads , as it is, to tyranny.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It helps if readers know to whom your comments are directed. If you want to respond and click on "reply", no one can tell who you are responding to unless you indicate their handle in your response. OTOH, if you click on "quote reply", the other party is named and his comment is quoted for you to reply to. It enables everyone to follow the conversations, the responses, etc.

Landsharkxray

Thanx for the tip. Discovered that after the first fault. Fixed it. Thanks again.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

Your're welcome, Landshark. This site DOES take some getting accustomed to - doesn't operate like most of the comment sites.

For instance, to "rave" a comment, you must check the "feedback link" where yours is 0/0.0%. It then invites you to comment to the person you want to "rave" or v**e "up". I will do that on YOUR page now - watch the "feedback %.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Right. However within the body of the constitution the powers and rights of the federal government are explicitly defined, all powers and rights not thus explicitly granted are explicitly denied the federal government. Therefore the "clarification" of the Bill of Rights can be and is considered by certain parties as a "definition" of the rights "granted" to the people. You would agree that this is misleading?

One such party are certain members of the judiciary sitting upon the Supreme Court.

Landsharkxray

I can not agree that it is misleading. I can agree that a conversation needs to be held by the people to decide what powers they should allow the states to exercise in the administration of their duties to the people. Most states operate under the assumption that they are to be served by the people and claim to act for the people in all of their actions, when, in fact, they act more for the governments purposes. For a government to be of, by and for the people, rights may be defined, but must be indefinite. This is what is articulated within Article X, BofR.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Certain members of the Supreme Court? Who would these people be? I think I know but it would be nice to know, for sure, who you refer to.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Roberts and Kennedy are certain members.

Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg are certain members.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were not the certain members, I was thinking of. As you can tell, I have uncertainties concerning Kennedy, and recently Roberts for allowing bifurcated reasoning to sway him. Mostly, because it is something I can see myself doing.

Yankee Clipper