- LK,Many people wanting free shi* for votes and to many politicians willing to sell the nation down the drain for their years in the sun . . It all started with the COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT - directing banks to make loans in city ghettos and marginal areas or they would be sued by the AG for RED LINING or a no loan zone.As the man said the GSE [FM & FM] were to GUARANTEE THE LOANS WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE USA GOVERNMENT. So, as you see the politicians created the demand for bad loans [toxic] and then had to guarantee them so they could be resold to investors. Yes, the Federal government did it to us again. What is new huh?Thank you for the video - I had not seen it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Interesting thought - if the Progressive Liberals push the gun issue and the second amendment rights to bear ARMS - which in the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers time included CANNONS - ROCKETS - BOMBS AND GRENADES these are all ARMs by definition so we can have those as individuals - wonder how the Left would feel about that occurring? I love it when a play comes together - a Supreme court case letting us have grenades - bombs - cannons - and rockets - think they will take that risk or will they stay out of court?
Read more: http://www.912communique.com/forum/topics/they-are-coming-for-your-...
Follow us: @912Communique on Twitter | TheConstitutionalConservatives on Facebook
- Permalink Reply by on
- GREAT SITES FOR STUDYING THE FOUNDERS WORKS AND THE CONSTITUTION - HOPE YOU ENJOY THEM :I will continue to post links and article that will help "WE THE PEOPLE TO RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC AND FREEDOMS.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Rhode Island, the thirteenth state, declined to send delegates.Thomas Jefferson characterized the 55 men who showed up in Philadelphia as "demi-gods," who created a Constitution that would last into remote futurity. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the work of the American Founders: never before in the history of the world had the leaders of a country declared the existing government to be bankrupt, and the people, after debate, calmly elected delegates who proposed a solution, which, in turn, was debated up and down the country for nearly a year, and not a drop of blood was spilled.Madison, in Federalist 37, indicates the uniqueness of the Founding: never before had there been a democratic founding; all previous foundings had been the work of a single founder like Romulus. And Hamilton, in Federalist 1, suggested that this was a unique event in the history of the world; finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud. And what is also unique is the fact that the framers were relatively young, well educated, and politically experienced. Like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was written by delegates immersed in 1) the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu, and 2) a world of political experience at both the state and continental level. Both basic documents were written in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, and thirty signers of the Declaration in 1776 played a vital part in the creation and adoption of the Constitution, 1787-1789.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- The lawyers view of case law theory and the M&M cases =John is a Law trained individual and I on the other hand am a strict Constitutionalist the two schools will never agree as Lawyers are trained to be adversarial - he can never provide the LANGUAGE in the Constitution that permits or forms our current legal system - Judicial Review was invented by Marshall in Washington's Presidential time and Implied Powers were an advent of the McCullough V Maryland case. the court to build a case law precedent used dicta to bring Hamilton's paper on Manufacturing in as actual precedent which is pure fabrication on the courts part.As for case law theory - it is so prevalent because that what law schools teach - Most only have one small course on the Constitution - this is the error - they all assume that all laws and courts were based on the British Common law. That would have been true in the Colonial era and even under the Confederacy but then that was at what we would now call the State level. Not even all of old States used the British Common law in fact the Louisiana system is based on French law.
The wording of Article III clearly lays out a very limited weak Court system and that is why the courts have usurped the powers. Not one Lawyer or law Professor that I have debated on the merits of their Case law theory can provide any language that this is even allowed in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT which we are - all law on the Federal level is based in Constitutional law for it is the base that restricts usurpation. The Constitution is mute on what States could do for that is the Construct of the Constitution it is a Federal Central government limiting document and the States can do as they please - see 10th amendment.I write this so you will understand where the Lawyers and most of those with vested interest will come from. they do not want limitation put on argument in court as the more case laws they can present the higher the fees go.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Some people would have us believe that the Federal courts have powers from Case law theory - these same people will try and tell us that our legal system is built on a foundation of case law bedrock and that the Legislature act of 1789 or so gave the powers to the courts. then they will tell us that the Marbury V. Madison and McCullough V. Maryland gave the courts new powers outside the constitutional limits of Article III. To make such argument one must then believe the tree of Liberty only grew in soft loose soil and could fall upon the first wind of change.The Constitution is the bed rock of our government and the tree of Liberty grow from the solid foundation of The law of the land - the Constitutional Republic as it is limited by the actual words, meanings and definitions of the time of writing. There same would have you believe that the courts have the power of Judicial Review, Checks and balances, Supremacy clause powers outside the Article I section 8 limits, creating new rights not given, creating laws from the bench.Some again say that the Constitution was just a FRAMEWORK for the Federal government and the courts to build upon. This premise is pure straw man if it were the case why would the FF&R include the Article V amendment process - humm frame work is not like a tree in winter standing naked in the face of irrefutable facts.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I left out the doctrine of IMPLIED POWERS ABOVE . It is also invented law.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John,Some people would have us believe that the Federal courts have powers from Case law theory - these same people will try and tell us that our legal system is built on a foundation of case law bedrock and that the Legislature act of 1789 or so gave the powers to the courts. then they will tell us that the Marbury V. Madison and McCullough V. Maryland gave the courts new powers outside the constitutional limits of Article III. To make such argument one must then believe the tree of Liberty only grew in soft loose soil and could fall upon the first wind of change.The Constitution is the bed rock of our government and the tree of Liberty grow from the solid foundation of The law of the land - the Constitutional Republic as it is limited by the actual words, meanings and definitions of the time of writing. There same would have you believe that the courts have the power of Judicial Review, Checks and balances, Supremacy clause powers outside the Article I section 8 limits, creating new rights not given, creating laws from the bench.Some again say that the Constitution was just a FRAMEWORK for the Federal government and the courts to build upon. This premise is pure straw man if it were the case why would the FF&R include the Article V amendment process - humm frame work is now like a tree in winter standing naked in the face of irrefutable facts.We are a Rule - by Law Constitutional Republic not a Rule - by Man and his legislative - Executive actions and/or the Actions of the courts. The Federal Courts are limited by Article III and I see no new language that expands those limits. Notice the repeated use of OPINIONS from the Courts - the Legislature - the Presidents - those fall like the weak trees in a hurricane of the powers of the Constitution. Where is the language in the actual Constitution that even pretends to support that OPINION without changing the meanings of word and the application of clauses that are still limited by Article section 8 and Article III. NO language has been presented in the defense of the usurped powers by the Legislature and the Executive.No John, in my OPINION the Constitution is what the States Ratified none of the other can pass that test and that is why they all usurp. You know that a brief must be constructed on a FOUNDATION OF LAW - yours and the entire legal community is built upon a false premise of Stare Decisis and the Progressive theory of A FRAME WORK CONSTITUTION that is a living document that the courts and Congress can alter at will - again I am not arguing opinions but facts in Law. I await the actual language in the Constitution that supports the OPINION of the many you quote.
No comments:
Post a Comment