 |
|
|
|
Next: Standing Up for Separation of Church and State
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
(Msg. 46) Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 10:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)
|
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<dM0tc.87996$hY.35756@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> <Draccus874.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:ea8aeb4.0405251833.41460991@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > You are to Constitutional scholarship what Dana is to well any thought
> > whatsoever. The power of impeachment is limited, or should be, to very
> > extreme circumstances. Now that brings us to what impeachment is,
> > impeachment is not the removal from office of a person, it is the
> > bringing of charges before the Senate for trial and to see if there is
>
> The above author is begging the question. He rightfully assumes that the
> power of impeachment should be limited. He then leaps to the wrong
> conclusion that Congress' power of impeachment is limited. While limits
> are appropriate, there are no such limits contained in the Constitution.
>
> David
David,
That is what impeachment is it is the avenue of last resort not the
first resort. It is hard to impeach and remove someone from public
office because it must be serious and not to be used on the whim of a
few zealots who have chosen to define the need for impeachment on the
political whim of the moment. It is a matter for thoughtful discourse
not political gamesmanship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 949
|
(Msg. 47) Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 11:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Spanking Lentz again ! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Jingo wrote:
> The Official Song of the 2004 GOP Convention
> "SORRY!"
> http://www.waynelammers.com/audio/Sorry_MIX.mp3
Thanks for this url. Haven't checked yet, but I am assuming it is a link
to the AirAmericaRadio tune they have been playing for a few days.
Quite a ditty.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 176
|
(Msg. 48) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 12:04 am
Post subject: Re: Lentz spanking 101 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:12:19 GMT, "Russell Keller"
<524design RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Because the ONLY thing "harmed" is YOUR interpretation of the
>> constitution and law.
>>
>
>
>Becarefull what you wish for. Bush is in office because of the liberal
>abstract thinking of the the living constitution.
The electoral college is liberal abstract thinking?
Or where you refering to that well-known liberal abstractionist,
Antonin Scalia, when he preempted a power expressly given to the
states?
>
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 949
|
(Msg. 49) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 2:23 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Dana Raffaniello <dpraff RemoveThis @gci.net> wrote:
> "Carol Lee Smith" <human RemoveThis @csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040526110927.8773C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Wed, 26 May 2004, David Lentz wrote:
> > > Impeachment of the entire sitting Supreme Court would constitute a check
> > > and balance by Congress on the runaway Supreme Court.
> > An allegation you have yet to substantiate.
> No, the Courts decisions are evidence of a runaway court.
In your dreams.
> --
> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
> at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
> -- Plagiarized/Stolen by Dana Raffaniello from someone else
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is
not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is
not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in
a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields] >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 50) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 3:16 am
Post subject: Re: Lentz spanking 101 [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 51) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 3:43 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4011
|
(Msg. 52) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 3:43 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jingo <Jingo DeleteThis @AFreeAmerica.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:15:20 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Draccus874@netscape.net wrote:
>>>The fact is that just because the Court has ruled in such a way as to be unpopular with some
>>>or even most people is not an impeachable offense.
>>
>>The problem with this claim is that one of the Founders, Hamilton,
>>pretty much expressly said the opposite in the Federalist Papers 81
>
>The Federalist Papers have no standing what so ever in matters of
>Constitutional law.
I think you will find that they are considered and referenced by the
justices when the make decisions, which means that they do have
standing. They aren't law, but they are evidence of intent.
>What does are decisions like Marbury v. Madison (Judicial Review) and
>McCulloch v. Maryland (National Supremacy and Implied Powers)
The latter made reference to the Federalist:
http://www.ashbrook.org/library/19/supremecourt/mccullough.html
>In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the
> opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly
> supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the
> Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their
> merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in
> the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness
> must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the
> proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is
> directed.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 53) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 3:48 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 54) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 3:52 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 55) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 3:55 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 56) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 3:59 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 57) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 4:02 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 58) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 4:03 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 26, 2004
Posts: 91
|
(Msg. 59) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 4:06 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 176
|
(Msg. 60) Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 4:06 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 01:06:09 GMT, Jingo <Jingo DeleteThis @AFreeAmerica.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:21:25 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>"David Lentz" <dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>Impeachment of the entire sitting Supreme Court would constitute a check and
>>>balance by Congress on the runaway Supreme Court.
>>
>>Evidence that the Supreme Court is "runaway"?
>
>Any civil rights decisions are evidence of a runaway court to Lentz
>the right wing Loon.
>
> Jingo
>
>The Official Song of the 2004 GOP Convention
>
>"SORRY!"
>
>http://www.waynelammers.com/audio/Sorry_MIX.mp3
That one rivals Eric Idle's "Fuck you very much the FCC" Only this
one I can play for my Christian friends.
>
>
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction - http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction by Rep. Ron Paul, MD The President's recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sa...
time bar - HI, Do federal insured student loan have a time bar on them? Like a statute of limitations on them? How many years can they go after me for non payment? Thanks
Do the references on your promisory note have to be US Cit.. - Hi, I recently received my financial aid award letter detailing what sort of financial aid I would be eligible for. Now I have to sign the Master Promisory note (MPN) from New York State Higher Education Services Corporation for my federal student..
Bankruptcy Reform: A humanely cynical proposal - As Congress struggles to agree on the exact wording of a much harsher bankruptcy statute (now commonly referred to as "BARF" even though it hasn't been enacted yet), I would like to propose an alternative. My alternative is simultaneously hars...
Can my defaulted student loan be bought from the government - I defaulted on a stafford loan several years back and it was turned over to the Dept. of Justice. Since August of 2000, I've been making payments, and the current balance is just under $10,000. Since I was in default in ligitation, my financial aid.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
