Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Edge · Feb 18, 2004, 12:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
This is FUNNY!

A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's just propaganda. Don't believe it.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's true, and that's the way the constitution set it up. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." Nowhere does it say, "unless the president, or congress, or the people disagree with their judgment." All it requires of them is "good Behavior."
You can see that the guys in power don't give a crap about the constitution. Why do you?

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Because I value liberty. By your own admission (and I do appreciate your sarcasm; one of my gifts as well), the alternative to interpreting the constitution according to it's original intent, is to render this not a nation of laws, but of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat that has allowed wealth redistribution schemes, the elimination of the respect for private property rights, and mandated a disrespect of life. As you quote, the supreme court, vested with the judicial power, [emphasis mine] should be the final check on both legislative and administrative action, not the main instigator in the decline of liberty.

The fact that the court has for the most part abandoned it's responsibility to show restraint, (not good behavior at all), does not mean that I need to abandon my advocay of liberty.

Feb 18, 2004, 12:18 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) This is FUNNY! A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's just propaganda. Don't believe it.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's true, and that's the way the constitution set it up. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." Nowhere does it say, "unless the president, or congress, or the people disagree with their judgment." All it requires of them is "good Behavior." You can see that the guys in power don't give a crap about the constitution. Why do you? --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Because I value liberty. By your own admission (and I do appreciate your sarcasm; one of my gifts as well), the alternative to interpreting the constitution according to it's original intent, is to render this not a nation of laws, but of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat that has allowed wealth redistribution schemes, the elimination of the respect for private property rights, and mandated a disrespect of life. As you quote, the supreme court, vested with the judicial power, [emphasis mine] should be the final check on both legislative and administrative action, not the main instigator in the decline of liberty. The fact that the court has for the most part abandoned it's responsibility to show restraint, (not good behavior at all), does not mean that I need to abandon my advocay of liberty.