Signs of Supreme Court activism worry Reagan administration lawyers - latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-activism-20120401,0,6035000.story RRD:Behold the "Romney Maneuver".What is the "Romney Maneuver" you ask?
The "Romney Maneuver" is the tactic that Liberals often use of saying "X can't be Socialism" because these statist sellout Republicans/Ex-conservatives say so.
The reality is that Violations of Individual Rights do not cease to be violations of Individual Rights merely because of the obtuseness of these brainless fools.
Restraint?
The role of the Court is to uphold the Constitution of the United States,not to practice "restraint" when the Constitution is being raped.
Nor is it the role of the Court to worship at the alter of "precedent right or wrong"
Which precedent should the Court uphold?
Dredd Scott?Plessy?Buck vs Bell?Korematsu?Roe?
Which of these,do these worthies think should have been upheld?
And as to Judge Silberman No,Congress really does not have the power to compel intra-state,or inter-state commerce,as part of some concocted power that exists only in your skull,to
"to forge national solutions to national problems."
Have you read the Federalist Papers?
Have you read the writings of the Founders?
If you asked Madison if the Commerce Clause,(which permits Congress to regulate INTER-STATE Commerce;a power intended to prevent trade wars between the States,)permitted the Federal Government to regulate Intra-State Commerce,and to prohibit someone from growing Marijuana in his own home,which he does not sell,& which never crosses state lines,he would think you are deranged.
Yet that is what the court absurdly ruled.
Now we are told by someone who pretends to believe in following the original intent of the Constitution,and who condemned the Court's Roe decision,that there is some new power of Congress to "to forge national solutions to national problems."
Where?
Where is fictious power?
Is it written in invisible ink?
Is is there some secret anagram,which,when read,reveals that the Founder's were actually advocates of near infinite federal power?
Or does it magically emanate from the Necessary & Proper clause?
Have you bothered to read the vehement denials of the Madison et-al,that the Necessary & Proper clause was a blanket grant of Federal Power?
And yet these are "Republicans".
Are these the kind of creatures that we may expect to see appointed by Romney?
After all "no Republican can be as bad as Obama". Yet you have three,who served under Reagan,who support this absurdity. Clearly they can.
We do not need "Republicans" in office.
We need defenders of Individual Rights.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-activism-20120401,0,6035000.story RRD:Behold the "Romney Maneuver".What is the "Romney Maneuver" you ask?
The "Romney Maneuver" is the tactic that Liberals often use of saying "X can't be Socialism" because these statist sellout Republicans/Ex-conservatives say so.
The reality is that Violations of Individual Rights do not cease to be violations of Individual Rights merely because of the obtuseness of these brainless fools.
Restraint?
The role of the Court is to uphold the Constitution of the United States,not to practice "restraint" when the Constitution is being raped.
Nor is it the role of the Court to worship at the alter of "precedent right or wrong"
Which precedent should the Court uphold?
Dredd Scott?Plessy?Buck vs Bell?Korematsu?Roe?
Which of these,do these worthies think should have been upheld?
And as to Judge Silberman No,Congress really does not have the power to compel intra-state,or inter-state commerce,as part of some concocted power that exists only in your skull,to
"to forge national solutions to national problems."
Have you read the Federalist Papers?
Have you read the writings of the Founders?
If you asked Madison if the Commerce Clause,(which permits Congress to regulate INTER-STATE Commerce;a power intended to prevent trade wars between the States,)permitted the Federal Government to regulate Intra-State Commerce,and to prohibit someone from growing Marijuana in his own home,which he does not sell,& which never crosses state lines,he would think you are deranged.
Yet that is what the court absurdly ruled.
Now we are told by someone who pretends to believe in following the original intent of the Constitution,and who condemned the Court's Roe decision,that there is some new power of Congress to "to forge national solutions to national problems."
Where?
Where is fictious power?
Is it written in invisible ink?
Is is there some secret anagram,which,when read,reveals that the Founder's were actually advocates of near infinite federal power?
Or does it magically emanate from the Necessary & Proper clause?
Have you bothered to read the vehement denials of the Madison et-al,that the Necessary & Proper clause was a blanket grant of Federal Power?
And yet these are "Republicans".
Are these the kind of creatures that we may expect to see appointed by Romney?
After all "no Republican can be as bad as Obama". Yet you have three,who served under Reagan,who support this absurdity. Clearly they can.
We do not need "Republicans" in office.
We need defenders of Individual Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment