In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Effective right to exist
The Dutchman
Member Posts: 811 ✭✭✭✭
A government that is too paralyzed to protect its citizens and too afraid to allow them the means to protect themsleves has lost the moral right to exist. Any wonder vote turnout is so low? SCOTUS has changed the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW to JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
Comments
A government that is too paralyzed to protect its citizens and too afraid to allow them the means to protect themsleves has lost the moral right to exist. Any wonder vote turnout is so low? SCOTUS has changed the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW to JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
Do you have any ideas what to do about it that will not land any of us in a dark wet jail cell eating table scraps ?
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
A government that is too paralyzed to protect its citizens and too afraid to allow them the means to protect themsleves has lost the moral right to exist. Any wonder vote turnout is so low? SCOTUS has changed the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW to JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
Do you have any ideas what to do about it that will not land any of us in a dark wet jail cell eating table scraps ?
Don't be on the losing end of the stick! [:D][:I]
I'm not sure what you mean by judicial tyranny. Other than the recent ruling on Eminent Domain, which I predict will be overturned by the Roberts court, I can't think of any ruling worth raising too much ruckus over.
Maybe I'm overlooking something
Would the term "judicial activists" fit better R-O ?
Hmm...I don't know...
It is quite clear that the judiciary has grown far more power than originally intended. I think it is worth noting that the powers of ALL branches of government have grown more than intended, particularly the powers of the President.
In all honesty, I trust the judges to do the right thing more than Congress or the President. An elected government trampled the peoples' right to bear arms in Washington, D.C. I saw no one on this board complain when "activist judges" overturned those laws.
I agree. And I believe it began with the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. It was the death of States Rights and it was the death of Individual Rights.
Equal Protection has now come to mean Equal Persecution. Not only are you beholden to local and state laws, but, above all, you are beholden to the almighty Federal Law.
Welcome. The choices truly are between the lesser of two evils and as gunfreak stated, "If it would make a difference it would be illegal", but I refuse to rollover without a fight. It seems all the top tier candidates are globalists/members of the CFR, Tri-laterialist's or some other secret organization with other than a Constitutionally based agenda. If this country does not seek it's moral compass and a candidate that will once again restore the relevance and validity of our Constitution all will be lost. For too many years the squeaky wheels on the left have have been getting all the grease and it's time for the right side to start squealing. Otherwise; the level of depravity this country is experiencing, and number/extent of socialist wealth sharing, government controlled programs, will explode. There needs to be a return to individual responsibility and less governmental control of our daily lives. There is no doubt in my mind that if the founding fathers, who sacrificed so much for our freedom, were able to come back today they would, at the very least, shake their heads with disgust.
Back To The Basics
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=229655
What I meant by judicial tyranny is that we, the people, cannot elect the judges who decide on the application fo the Constitution. Their opinions are binding yet they are not accountable to the electorate. This would seem to me as tyrannical as King Geroge or Josef Stalin.
The judges are not accountable to the electorate for very good reasons....the Founders feared a "tyranny of the majority" as much as anything else. Sometimes judges must make extremely unpopular decisions in the name of the Constitution.
And, is there a method of removal for the members of SCOTUS by the people, other than the obvious one?
FDR tried to "pack" the Court once by expanding the number of justices so that he could simply appoint men who would rubber stamp his "Depression Era" legislation since several of his pieces of legislation had been shot down by the existing Court. He would have totally controlled all branches of the government and could have done just about anything he wanted. Fortunately, there was a major political backlash, even among his supporters, and the attempt failed.
Judges appointed by long past administrations provide a leavening effect upon the decisions made at any given moment in time and help keep radical concepts from becoming law. The Liberals on the current bench will help keep anything too far outside the bounds of reason from getting through, just as the current appointees will help contain the Liberals in the future when they get back in power. They will, you know.
There was always an expectation, and a desire, that the Justices would serve for a long period of time in order to provide some level of continuity of law from one generation to the next and not just react to the latest political breeze. It works because we can't change them on a whim, but only over long periods of time.
What I meant by judicial tyranny is that we, the people, cannot elect the judges who decide on the application fo the Constitution. Their opinions are binding yet they are not accountable to the electorate. This would seem to me as tyrannical as King Geroge or Josef Stalin.
About Thomas Jefferson and judicial review: Who should make the final decision on interpreting the Constitution? The Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was decided during the first term of President Thomas Jefferson, determined that IT should make the final decision for all branches of government, and that opinion has remained in force ever since. Jefferson, however, strongly opposed Judicial Review because he thought it violated the principle of separation of powers. He proposed that each branch of government decide constitutional questions for itself, only being responsible for their decisions to the voters.