Walker Has No College Degree...

[KingOrfeo]

Wilson wrote:

“No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle. The rights of man are easy to discourse of, may be very pleasingly magnified in the sentences of such constitutions as it used to satisfy the revolutionary ardor of French leaders to draw up and affect to put into operation; but they are infinitely hard to translate into practice. Such theories are never ‘law’; no matter what the name or the formal authority of the document in which they are embodied. Only that is ‘law’ which can be executed, and the abstract rights of man are singularly difficult of execution.”

So? Every word of that is true and none of it shows any disrespect for the Constitution. So far as it is a "charter of negative liberties," they have nothing to do with "the inalienable rights of the individual." No philosopher would seriously contend you have any "natural right" to trial by jury in all matters where the controversy exceeds twenty dollars in value. See also:

Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. Hamilton wrote:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Wilson wrote as well:

“The makers of our federal Constitution followed the scheme as they found it expounded, in Montesquieu, followed it with genuine scientific enthusiasm. The admirable expositions of the ‘Federalist’ read like thoughtful applications of Montesquieu to the political needs and circumstances of America.” And that, “They are full of the theory of checks and balances. … Politics is turned into mechanics under his touch.”

Yes, indeed, and consciously so; you'll find Montesquieu cited as a model in The Federalist, see 10 and 47.

“The trouble with the theory [of limited and divided government] is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. This is where the living and breathing constitution comes from. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life."

So? Every word of that is true and none of it shows any disrespect for the Constitution.

“Wilson goes on to say:

“No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. So the government is a living thing. It’s like a body, and it cannot live unless it changes and it adapts."

Once again.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

There is an amendment process, but as you know, liberals use the un-elected court system to advance their agenda with newly discovered prenumbras that support their totalitarian aims.

Says mister federal supremacy, Mr. I want Obama impeached for not trampling states rights and the will of the people...LMFAO

You're hypocrisy knows no end does it?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Says mister federal supremacy, Mr. I want Obama impeached for not trampling states rights and the will of the people...LMFAO

You're hypocrisy knows no end does it?

are you smoking the cuckold juice?

 

[BotanyBoy]

are you smoking the cuckold juice?

No I'm laughing at the hypocrite vetteman for talking out of his ass.....

English mother fucker, do you speak it??

 

[NeverEndingMe]

No I'm laughing at the hypocrite vetteman for talking out of his ass.....

English mother fucker, do you speak it??

dude, put down the cuckold juice...its kind of early to get sloppy

 

[BotanyBoy]

dude, put down the cuckold juice...its kind of early to get sloppy

Ahhh...you're vettemans little dick sucker....interesting.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is an amendment process, but as you know, liberals use the un-elected court system to advance their agenda with newly discovered prenumbras that support their totalitarian aims.

It would be impossible to apply the Constitution without court interpretations of it.

 

[Que]

It would be impossible to apply the Constitution without court interpretations of it.

The court is empowered to check all laws and issue the final ruling as to matters of fact and law as to whether they do or do not comport to the actual BLACK LETTER LAW contained in the constitution. They are not empowered to "interpret" any meaning or intent that is not written therin.

Congress is empowered to absolutely limit the scope of what cases SCOTUS can hear on an appellate basis and of course they can impeach any justice at anytime. They never will do either, of course.

Two completely different mindsets.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The court is empowered to check all laws and issue the final ruling as to matters of fact and law as to whether they do or do not comport to the actual BLACK LETTER LAW contained in the constitution. They are not empowered to "interpret" any meaning or intent that is not written therin.

Yes, they are. Every court is empowered to interpret the Constitution, the statutes and the case law; no court could function otherwise in a common-law system.

 

[Busybody]

Researching Scott Walker's college years is called "vetting". Researching Obama's college years is called "racism"

 

[cowslinger64]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

How did Dred Scott work out?

Badly. Of course, that reflects on that particular decision, not on judicial interpretation a such. Deciding the case the other way would have been equally a matter of judicial interpretation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Absolutely true.

See post #87.

 

[1sickbastard]

How did Dred Scott work out?

Not nearly as well as Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Kansas Board of Education. Murry v Curlett, Loving v Virginia, Lawrence v Texas, Roe v Wade or Windsor v United States.

Funny how, when the SCOTUS rules for greater equality before the law, things tend to worked out better, isn't it?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Disgustipated]

There is an amendment process, but as you know, liberals use the un-elected court system to advance their agenda with newly discovered prenumbras that support their totalitarian aims.

According to you, Liberals are Kings of all that live, die and decompose.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The court is empowered to check all laws and issue the final ruling as to matters of fact and law as to whether they do or do not comport to the actual BLACK LETTER LAW contained in the constitution. They are not empowered to "interpret" any meaning or intent that is not written therin.

Congress is empowered to absolutely limit the scope of what cases SCOTUS can hear on an appellate basis and of course they can impeach any justice at anytime. They never will do either, of course.

Two completely different mindsets.

One associate justice was impeached, long ago.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.htm

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Researching Scott Walker's college years is called "vetting". Researching Obama's college years is called "racism"

Hillary does her own vetting, who knows her better! Who knows where the bodies are really buried! Hillary! And it goes quickly cuz she knows theres little to find.

 

[unregistered]