Comments for Can Congress Write Any Law it Wants? »
Posted By populist 8 months, 1 week ago in Political NewsThe whole purpose of the Constitution is, was, and has been to define the government, to impose restraints on the government, and to guarantee personal freedoms. It specifically diffused power between the States and the central government and, within the federal government itself, it separated powers among the three branches.
Read Full Story at tenthamendmentcenter.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 27
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
-
100%
engineer8 months, 1 week ago
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive8 Replies
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
"The oath to uphold the Constitution that everyone in government takes, though solemnly delivered and publicly sworn to, like an oath to tell the truth in Court, is simply not taken seriously. Notwithstanding the plain language of specific grants and general restraints, notwithstanding a careful compromise between the Hamiltonians who wanted all power to be in the federal government and the Jeffersonians who wanted all power in the States, and notwithstanding our inalienable rights from our Creator, the federal government today simply recognizes no limits on its power.
But the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We will have chaos if those in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping intentionally violate it with impunity. A government that violates its supreme law becomes arbitrary, and arbitrary rule becomes authoritarian, and authoritarian rule will trample our freedoms. Just six weeks into its four-year term, the Obama administration and its allies in Congress, just like the Bush administration and its allies, have acted like they never heard of the Constitution. They have attempted to control salaries of private banks, change the terms of private mortgages, enter the marketplace by nationalizing banks and the world’s largest insurer, and investing taxpayer dollars in companies whose products consumers reject and investors eschew. This is theft of liberty and theft of taxpayer property."
Here is all of our problems in a nut shell.
First of all, we all have inalienable rights from our creator who is recognized in the constitution.
Therefore God our creator gave all people inalienable rights.
But those who don't accept God reject the inalienable rights we all have and want their own kind of rights which do not exist.
The rights to do as they please, the rights to steal from us, the rights to enslave us, the rights to deny the very creator upon which the constitution bases some of their rights.
Now certainly we all have the freedom to reject what we choose to believe or not. And I say if you choose not believe in God, well that is your right. But it is not your right to destroy this nations laws and constitutional guidance because you want to live without Gods laws.
Go live elsewhere, where they reject God and his ways instead of bringing us down to the level of the nations who suffer for it.
As far as our presidents, congress, and judicial branches. We have destroyed the foundation they were supposed to be upon the constitution. We let them bedazzle us for a few measley dollars and a shiny promise that turned to a huge debt and an outright lie. -
80%
tadair9198 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
according to some idiots, it doesn't count as unconstitutional until the supreme court rules on it.
Reply
meaning if your state banned free speech and free press, then that's fine until it goes to the supreme court for them to knock down. -
100%
calitennflo8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are “inalienable” and come to us from “Our Creator.” I liked that...inalienable...ok cops...better read the 4th amendment!
Reply -
100%
Endoscopy8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are three branches of government for this very reason. They are supposed to be a watch dog on each other. If a bill is passed by congress then the president should veto it. If he does not veto it the matter will end up at the Supreme Court to decide if it is constitutional.
Reply -
40%
Cranky1018 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the crazed socialist/communistas in government today...you know who you are, Barry Soetoro are allowed to continue to bypass the constitution (i.e the 90% on AIG bonuses, the $1.01 federal tax on tobacco products which amount to Bills of Attainder which are unconstitutional) we won't have a United States. Besides which, Big Barry is a Malaysian citizen and is commiting treason (and so did the 50 committee chairs in each state that allowed him to be nominated for the presidency.
Reply
Barry is not legally the president. -
50%
Cranky1018 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dunkirk,you might want to get your glasses perscription checked as well. Oh, wait, you don't read, do you? It shows in your post. ROFLMAO. Because if you DID read you know that the requirement for Natural Born Citizenship is rather narrow and the qualifications to be president are even narrower than that and that was absolutely intentional by founding fathers. So obviously, you have no clue what you are talking abut. I suggest that you go check your facts before saying someone is wrong. There are actually quite a few Americans, born here to American citizens that don't necessarily meet the qualifications of "Natural Born Citizenship" required for candidacy for the Presidency.
Reply
Obama has clearly stated that his father was a British citizen. That right there disqualifies him. A candidate for the Presidency is not allowed have ties to any other nation. There is also the question of his Malaysian citizenship. Since he was a Malaysian national, (how else could he have been issued a Malaysian passport and traveled to Pakistan in his youth when travel there was banned to American citizens) he would have had to "re-patriate" if that is the correct term. Again, disqualifying him for the presidency.
Thirdly, his grandmother (I cannot remember whether maternal or paternal, I will need to check that) stated clearly that she was present at his birth in Kenya, again disqualifying him from the Presidency.
Fourthly, there is the question of his long-form certificate of live birth in Hawaii, which was sealed by him and his campaign. They released a short form Certificate of Live Birth, which is DIFFERENT than a birth certificate. A Certificate of Live Birth only states that a child was born, not where and when. They are two different things.
To Hyperbola, you don't have to be a member of any sect to know actual, bona fide facts. The facts speak for themselves. There are a lot of people, including the media in general and the DNC that fell asleep on the job. That's the cold hard truth, like or not. Obama has no business being in the White House, period, end of story. -
50%
lloydm658 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You must be talking past tense.There hasn't been any laws written in the last fifty years.Maybe your referring to the suggestion tossed around from time to time.Like border crossing,or coming here on a visa,never going home,Janet Politano say's no law broken,of course not you can't violate a suggestion.I think we should make hiring Americans against the law,we could still seek a job because it will be consider a suggestion.Some want term limits I want new ones every year.It used to take ten or more years to corrupt a politician,today they come into office already stinking.
Reply -
100%
fjgalt8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From the Supreme Court decision on Marbury vs. Madison, 1803
Reply
"The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable."
Some may argue against the assertion by the Supreme Court that it is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws but that has been the method.
Since the Constitution is written in plain language, to be understood by the common citizen, it should be obvious which laws pass constitutional muster. It is also obvious that the Supreme Court has ruled laws clearly unconstitutional to be valid. But who do you go to higher than the Supreme Court?
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.