Texas nationalist Would Like to Secede Now

Yes I know. But your argument is based on your interpretation of what is Constitutional and what is not. At least that is my interpretation of our argument. If it is not, then I do apologize.

Are you wanting to knnow what my interpretation of the US Constitution is?

 

'The Texans aren't idiots'. Uh huh, well nobody but an idiot would claim that Europe has ANY socialist or Communist nations, and the only absolute monarchies are those of tiny Lichtenstein (pop. 32,000, which you probably never heard of), and the Vatican, which you might have. You're right, the Texans aren't idiots, they're just ignorant lol.

Oh, and it's secession, not succession. Texans are smart all right lol! Oh, and England and Switzerland are both in Europe. Europe isn't a country. Jeezus wept...

 

No, you are correct. My argument is based on my understanding of the constitution. However, I acknowledge that the federal government, the organization with the largest armed forces in the world, can pretty much say the constitution means whatever they want it to mean. Really, what is anyone going to do about it.

Sure, I'd love to know your interpretation (as opposed to the federal government's interpretation).

 

Just curious: if the whiners do not like the way democracy works then what is they want to install in the state of Texas?

 

Now don' go askin' questions thet makes em think. hear tell it hurts their tiny l'il brains.

 

Democracy? With a Congressional approval rating of 13% you think we live in a democracy? Obama did not even get half the popular vote. Instead, the American public is held hostage by the federal government.

 

A Constitutional Republic.

 

You might want to get your facts straight President Obama won both the popular and electorial college votes. Don't like Democracy, find some other system you would prefer and move there, and do not come back.

 

I said that he did not get HALF Of the popular vote. Did Obama get over 50%? I think not. Granted, people "like" him and think it is cool having a black president.

As far as Congress, this is perhaps the biggest indictment of the system of failure. My suggestion would be to return power to the state legislature since the revised system we have now is an absolute joke as the same people keep getting elected again, and again, and again, as Congressional approval ratings continue to fall.

 

Voting is the only way to do anything about our form of government and what it does. I would rather have 95% people vote in all levels of elections than the current voter turnout that we have, especially in the local elections.

A combination of Dual Federalism and Cooperative Federalism. I do believe states do have certain authority that are the exclusive domain within their power, but with some circumstances, states must work with the Federal goverment on certain issues such as crime, kidnappings, sex slave, drugs, gun running, and national defense.

 

Did I miss something or are you really that uninformed? Obama won the popular vote by 3,473,402 votes, which is 51% of the PV. He won the EC with 62 votes to spare.

 

Then you should stopping thinking (guessing) and do more real research.
You suggestion is the same as many other losers, they could not get their way through the methods setup by the Founders so you want to change or tear down the system. Nope not gonna happen, wrap your brain around that Fact and move with life.

 

Do you know how much we spend on agricultural subsidies?

Oh, so you're not really a free market advocate then.

If you actually understood how the agricultural market works, you'd realize that they don't need the subsidies. In most cases, they drive up the value of food rather than letting the market reach a normal equilibrium.

One of the few exceptions to this is beef. Beef would be a lot more expensive under normal conditions, but then again, considering the obesity epidemic here, it would probably be better for us to eat less beef.

 

You do understand that you are implicitly affirming the power of five unelected people to amend the Constitution, right?

Sure it is, to the degree that the other two branches are derelict in their duty to refuse to abide by unconstitutional court rulings.

 

No, I am implicit that the judicial branch verifies whether a law passed by Congress and signed by the President is within the Constitution. What you are advocating, however is that we should ignore the judicial branch altogether. You s

You should read Article III, Marbury v Madison, and Federalist Paper #78 as a start.

 

Yes.

But that's not what you said to begin with. You said

Once the Supreme Court rules [that a law] is Constitutional, such as the expansion of the commerce clause, then that law does become Constitutional​

From this it follows ineluctably that the SC has de facto power to amend the Constitution.

Only when it ignores the Constitution - which position of course could not possibly be more consonant with the Constitution.

Marbury is of no moment, since the Judiciary is clearly incompetent to be its own watchdog. I read #78 years ago, and I doubt anything in it contradicts me. As for A3, not a syllable of it supports your contention, which, admittedly, is about as popular as it is preposterous.

 

Again, no. What I said was merely rephrasing of what I originally posted. What you are doing is playing semantics.

When the Supreme Court rules a law Constitutional, that law is within the framework of what the intent of said document. It is therefore, exercising its judicial power. This is what Marbury v Madison established in that court case.

Your version maybe, but not within the power of judicial review, which is what the Marbury case decided. Furthermore, your position is no where within the scope of Federalist Papwer #78. Finally, no Supreme court justice is incompetent, not even Scalia. They do, however, have different legal philosophies on how to interpret the Constitution, but that is all.

 

Again, yes.

No, what I'm doing is exposing a logical consequence of your position.

So if Congress passes a law requiring certain undesirables to be herded into concentration camps, and the SC rules that law constitutional, the President is obligated to execute that law. Right?

Pilgrim, I don't have a "version" of A3, other than what was ratified in 1788 - which, ironically enough, cannot be said for J. Marshall if Marbury is to be taken as indicative.

Even granting the dubious premise that there is a grain of truth in this, it wouldn't matter a whole lot.

On the contrary, anyone with a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows that there are at least 5 Justices who are functionally incompetent, which is why Obamacare is now popularly considered the law of the land.

 

"...Texas nationalist Would Like to Secede Now ..."

Three Things: Talk's cheap...not a minute too soon...don't let the door hit em' in the rear.

 

Let him secede. You can swim both ways across the Rio Grande.

 

Agan no.

That is what you thing you are doing, but that is not what you are doing.

Yes, the President is obligated to execute the law . However , the President is required to execute that law even if the SC does not rule on the case. In order to rule it, judicial review has to be used. You are ignoring "shall be vested" under the judicial review. The definition of "shall be vested" and judicial review

Son, you really do not know what you are talking about/ Everu ;ega; expert, every lawyer who has taken Constitutional law knows that Marbury is one of the most important cases and that case established how to define "judicial review" and "shall be vested." Your argument is flawed since you are ignoring the Marbury case.

It does matters a whole lot. Nothing that you are saying is not within any of the Federalist papers, that I know of.

Yes the Constiution is a very precise document so that everyone will agree on such matters. Even the founding fathers, including those who were in agreement with the premise of the Federalist papers, were disagreeing on what the Constitution means. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Again, yes.

It's exactly what I'm doing, as you so obligingly demonstrate in your very next sentence:

QED

Actually, his oath of office requires him to refuse to execute the law, since no such statute is cognizable as law under the Constitution.

If that includes you, it's hardly any wonder your understanding of the Constitution is so disgracefully shallow. You've been taught what to think about a document that cannot possibly be understood by people who let others teach them what to think about it.

Non sequitur, obviously, but an understandable misperception given your self-imposed mental handicap.

Yeah, I'll bet you're just all broken up over the fact that the interpretation of the general welfare clause proffered in #41 has become little more than a historical footnote.

If true that doesn't say a whole lot for you, since I obviously understand the Constitution at least a million times better than you do.