What are we fighting for??

[rodbender]

Holding a law up to the Constitution and determining its Constitutionality involves interpreting the intent of the Constitution. The examiner of the law determines the Constitutionality of the law based on the intent of the Constitution.

I am not sure if you meant to type it, or if that is actually what you think, but: "And, no, SCOTUS does have interpretive power of the Constitution." Did you mean SCOTUS "does have?"

If you did mean what you said than how could SCOTUS have the interpretive power of (or "by?"....sorry, I realize that you are saying that they aren't given the power to interpret) the Constitution, but not have the power to interpret the Constitution? They interpret the intent of the Constitution, not the validity of the aspect of the Constitution the law is being held against.

Sorry, I meant to say that SCOTUS does "NOT" have the power to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is what it is. The Constitution was interpreted by the framers and that is the way it is suppose to stand. Every person that dons a black robe should have a handle on this. If they don't or if they refuse to follow the framers intent, if they involve international law, or islamic law, then they are "NOT" in good behavior and should be impeached. Yes, lifetime appointed federal judges can and have been impeached.

If you think that federal judges have interpretive power over the Constitution, tell me what part of the Constitution that gives them this power. Article III is the only part of the Constitution that mentions the judiciary.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Sorry, I meant to say that SCOTUS does "NOT" have the power to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is what it is. The Constitution was interpreted by the framers and that is the way it is suppose to stand. Every person that dons a black robe should have a handle on this. If they don't or if they refuse to follow the framers intent, if they involve international law, or islamic law, then they are "NOT" in good behavior and should be impeached. Yes, lifetime appointed federal judges can and have been impeached.

If you think that federal judges have interpretive power over the Constitution, tell me what part of the Constitution that gives them this power. Article III is the only part of the Constitution that mentions the judiciary.

*I really hope this isn't another thread that get shut down. I am begging everyone to keep it civil.*

"The Constitution was interpreted by the framers and that is where it is supposed to stand"...where does it say that in the Constitution? The Constitution was agreed upon my many men with different views. The Constitution was finalized based on a consensus of many men, not just one. In what I have read(e) (I am not Constitutional scholar) there appears to have been disagreement during the process of writing the Constitution. The framers did not have a unified intent, just a consensus on what should be in the Constitution.

The Constitution is what it is within the context of the individual considering the law being reviewed and the finding as to the law's Constitutionality when held against whatever portion of the Constitution is being argued for or against. Are you proposing that ALL Justices and/or judges should have historical knowledge of the Constitution and it so-called intent? Obama is a scholar of the US Constitution...future Justice?

The Constitution does not state "interpret"...it doesn't need to. The act of holding law to the Constitution and making a finding--which is granted within the Constitution as their Constitutional authority--is inherently interpretive. Interpretation is inherent in the Constitution authority that is given to the Judicial Branch.

People hang on one word, such as: Interpret. Then ask the question where in the Constitution does it say "interpret"...well, it doesn't say that I have a right to own and carry a Beretta 92FS. The second Amendment states:...well, we all know what it states. The second Amendment is a general affirmation of an individuals fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Me being able to purchase and own a Beretta 92FS is inherent in the Constitution granting me as an individual to "keep and bear arms." Another example would be the ban on automatic weapons, well, the restriction into oblivion of automatic weapons for the average American citizen-completely unConstitutional IMO...then again maybe it is in fact Constitutional because it has not been ruled unConstitutional by SCOTUS, at least as far as I have come to know.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[Nevada carrier]

Currently I am in the Army. I joined for protection of rights and college. In our enlistment it says:

Excerpt taken directly from contract:
"I, [your name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of [WI for me] against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of [WI for me] and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the law and regulations. So help me God."

I don't know, maybe my idea of an enemy is different than the rest. To me anyone who opposes the constitution is an enemy. Then again that is my opinion. Either way I see it, I have served to uphold both everyone's rights to openly carry a form of protection, and for those who oppose to speak against it. The fact that people are so against it just shows that we as Americans have been lax on our rights. I know as soon as I get back from Fort Campbell I am going to be more into exercising my rights. After carrying one for so long and then not, it will feel good to have another by my side again.

I served in the Army this is the problem as I see it, too many soldiers recite the Oath of Enlistment but are never told what it means. They are always trained to follow the orders of their non-commissioned officers, officers and the president but are not trained in how to distinguish an unlawful order from a lawful one. How many Privates do you know that believe they can effectively disobey an unlawful order? How many do you thin will give into the pressure and obey it for fear of UCMJ?

I never received any training on what to do if given an unlawful order, I had to learn it on my own, and I only did so because i had the forethought to see a bad situation coming far enough in advance. What do you think would happen if the national guard were mobilized and ordered to confiscate firearms from every private citizen? How many do you think will fall out of ranks, immediately stand down and demand that they contact their JAG office and Inspector general? How many privates even know where those offices are located for their post? Now, after asking yourself these question then ask yourself how many junior NCO's and lieutenants are aware of these things. the answer may shock you.

If you ask me, when a private arrives at their reception battalion and begin to receive orientation into the military way of life, they should be made fully aware of how to tell a lawful order from an unlawful one. They should be given examples of the most commonly given unlawful orders and they should be trained in how to properly refuse to obey them without risking UCMJ for some other offense such as conduct unbecoming by virtue of disobeying an unlawful order in a manner inconsistent with protocol.

 

[PrayingForWar]

If I might interject on behalf of SOCIAL "conservatives", many of the reasons they oppose liberalism on many of the social issues seem to never be explained. While I disagree that the feds need to regulate all the behaviors they oppose, the reasons the "religious right" opposes issues such as gay marriage, legal dope and uncensored language/porn on TV is out of genuine concern for the moral decline we are witnessing.

There are statistics that suggest the rejection of things like a two parent household, have led to greater crime rates for instance. To flat out reject their beliefs is just as close minded as saying gays should be expelled from society. I disagree with the "social conservatives" only in their means to the end, but not their reasoning. Popular culture has made morality a dirty word, and that is unfortunate.

50 years ago the idea of gay marriage was as laughable as the idea of NAMBLA (with the ACLU) successfully winning a case in SCOTUS in 2060 that allows one of Michael Jackson's victim's sons to marry his own 13 year old victim. When I bring up NAMBLA, libs immediately dismiss it. They say it's not compareble because gay marriage is about 2 consenting adults. Yet at the same time here in the present it seems to me that in many cases liberals seem to promote the idea of "liberating" teenagers from their parents control. (Unless it's a young muslim female trying to escape her parents after converting to christianity.) So as outlandish as gay marriage must have been 50 years ago, how outlandish will legalized pedophilia be with consenting children in 50 years?

When I look at issues, I try to take a stance that promotes my freedom first. Call it selfish or whatever, but me as an individual who is responsible for the lives and safety of a family, my freedom is the highest priority. It just so happens that my interest in individual liberty does not infringe on anyone else's so far as what they do on their property.

For social conservatives, I think in some cases they're concerned with what kind of influences their children are exposed to outside the home (and on TV). I also do not relish my children coming home from school with the local primates wearing their pants around their knees and talking like someone on MTV. Hell hath no fury like I will demonstrate should such a nightmare become reality.

For every issue that a liberal takes a stand on, I almost instinctively take the opposite side. Since I was a moonbat as a teenager, I am accutely aware of how these "people" are programmed to "think". Liberals do not promote their agenda out of concern for freedom, the constitution, or the advancement of society. Liberalism is founded in the very same progressive politics that spawned the evils of fascism, nazism and communism. The primary enemy of these philosophies has been the only constitutional republic with a free market economy that has existed for the last 200+ years. These "people" we call liberals are useful idiots, and every agenda they promote can be found here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1561529/posts

I was referring to SOCIAL conservatives, otherwise known as the right wing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics; those who want to use the government to conserve the social order. Yes they are part of the problem.

MY OPPINIONS ADDED

a few things social conservatives want that keeps the govt larger:
drug laws, Let crackheads die of overdose in the streets

marriage laws, I thought that was a function of a church anyway, when did it become a government function?

tax incentives for having children, marrying etc. Flat tax would eliminate it

taxes! If we funded gov't only through tariff/excize taxes as per the Constitution, millions on welfare would have to work or starve to death. I have no problem with either.

police, (note not sheriffs or constables) Kinda need police, not sure what you're after here

FBI, Should be a lab and a resource for interstate agencies to verify and collect data. Not a bunch of clowns with weapons, and should have power to arrest only corrupt sheriffs/state police commisioners, politicians and buearucrats. Not the citizenry.

Education dept (federal) Pull the plug

social security Insurance, End it

medicare, End it

bases on foreign soil Pull 'em

a standing federal army, Kinda need that too

... to name a few things. All of those things I see supported by social conservatives and every one of those makes the federal govt larger and most of it ends up infringing upon individual freedom either directly or indirectly.

Not sure how the military infringes on freedom. Hell, for that matter, thanks to the military industrial complex's demands. We have made major scientific inroads in the cause of killing commies, which is a noble cause, and one we have neglegted for far too long.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I served in the Army this is the problem as I see it, too many soldiers recite the Oath of Enlistment but are never told what it means. They are always trained to follow the orders of their non-commissioned officers, officers and the president but are not trained in how to distinguish an unlawful order from a lawful one. How many Privates do you know that believe they can effectively disobey an unlawful order? How many do you thin will give into the pressure and obey it for fear of UCMJ?

I never received any training on what to do if given an unlawful order, I had to learn it on my own, and I only did so because i had the forethought to see a bad situation coming far enough in advance. What do you think would happen if the national guard were mobilized and ordered to confiscate firearms from every private citizen? How many do you think will fall out of ranks, immediately stand down and demand that they contact their JAG office and Inspector general? How many privates even know where those offices are located for their post? Now, after asking yourself these question then ask yourself how many junior NCO's and lieutenants are aware of these things. the answer may shock you.

If you ask me, when a private arrives at their reception battalion and begin to receive orientation into the military way of life, they should be made fully aware of how to tell a lawful order from an unlawful one. They should be given examples of the most commonly given unlawful orders and they should be trained in how to properly refuse to obey them without risking UCMJ for some other offense such as conduct unbecoming by virtue of disobeying an unlawful order in a manner inconsistent with protocol.

I can't see TRADOC going through the trouble of molding minds around following orders, and then throw in some sort of training that teaches new soldiers some loopholes. In my own experience however we did learn about illegal orders, and that we could be charged with following them. Specifically regarding wartime circumstances, and garrison issues like washing the CO's car or such things. Nothing much about domestic issues. Belive me though, a lot of NG soldiers are accutely aware of and carry a POC info for the IG.

 

[Freedom First]

Flashback...

Wow, I was just sitting here thinking of a day in 1987 when I stood up and repeated: “I, Government Educated Schmuck, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.“

One major problem. I had never read it. I was clueless to the contents of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the thoughts of the Founders and I barely knew who the President was. I was 17 after all and had been fed into an education system designed to make good taxpayers, not good Americans.

I know today that we are doing nothing more for our troops (and LEO) and we are making them ignorant accomplices to the overthrow of our way of life. I would not have known that it is a violation of the Rights of an American to kick in their door and seize their weapons at gunpoint as troops did in the aftermath of Katrina. Or that I was wrong for even being there in a police role in the first place.

I have learned much in the last ten years and I am working hard to educate the people I meet about the way our government should actually be working. I work in an on-site service industry and I talk to most of the people I meet and I leave them with a copy of THEIR Constitution to read for themselves. Most have never read it. When I return, many are full of questions about how it got this way and how we can fix it.

I would like to say I have the painless answer but there is not one. This national government will not willingly submit again to those it thinks it rules. The people we send to “represent” us in DC fall into one of the two following groups: Ignorant or Immoral. It is similar to Jesus’ claims of divinity: he was crazy, he was a crook, or He is Christ. Those are the only three choices for His claims. These men and women claim to serve us but the end result of their work is to enslave us. Thus they are truly ignorant of their supposed role or they are willing participants. Only two logical choices. Which is it?

Ignorance of the Constitution: Frank A. LoBiondo, Congressman for the 2nd District of New Jersey http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPTiTYDOQd8&feature=related

Willing violation of his Oath: Phil Hare, Congressman for the 17th District of Illinois http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8&feature=related

Clear position on her Oath: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc

As Americans who see a need to exercise Rights we as a nation are neglecting regarding guns, we should also spend time on the other Rights and Responsibilities of living in this land. Read the Constitution and Amendments thoroughly. Study your State Constitution as originally written and note the changes in the last one hundred years. Look at the things that have encroached into our lives, the assumptions and misunderstandings. Explore the voids in your education. Ask questions.

Self education: www.nccs.net for excellent pocket Constitutions (100 for $30)
Self education: www.constitutionfacts.com for great info and some very challenging tests

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Ya know....."rotorhead" in some peoples minds implies one of those silly little caps with a propellor on the top...... not usually portrayed in a good light.

And then all of us fixed wing pilots, well we pretty much think rotorheads are not playing with a full deck. The spinny thing belongs on the front as Orville and Wilbur designed it!

Sure you want exclusive rights? LOL

EDIT ADD: The AH-64 is a bad assed platform. I could, even as a fixed wing guy, see myself flying one of those in a combat zone.

Orville and Wilbur put the spinny thing in the rear. Someone else moved it to the front.:banghead::shocker:

 

[JoeSparky]

Orville and Wilbur put the spinny thing in the rear. Someone else moved it to the front.:banghead::shocker:

Sorry, but Orville and Wilber put the spinny things on the WINGS. It was the Horizontal stabilizer that THEY PUT ON THE FRONT, which was moved later to the rear! :banghead::shocker:

 

[eye95]

Sorry, but Orville and Wilber put the spinny things on the WINGS. It was the Horizontal stabilizer that THEY PUT ON THE FRONT, which was moved later to the rear! :banghead::shocker:

Sorry, but Orville and Wilbur put the spinny things on the REAR of the WINGS. Someone else moved it to the front of the wings! :banghead::shocker:

[Now it is someone else's turn to put too fine a point on it, bang their head, and be shocked. ]

 

[rodbender]

[Now it is someone else's turn to put too fine a point on it, bang their head, and be shocked. ]

I think you guys have about covered it all.

 

[since9]

Wow, I was just sitting here thinking of a day in 1987...

Your post was stellar! Keep up the good work! :banana: