General Discussion

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

36. And you continue. Apparently you dont think much of Thomas Jefferson.

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:37 AM

Dec 2012

Also, apparently you dont listen to Thom Hartmann. If you want to have a decent discussion, dont imply that those that dont agree with you are representing the right-wing.

If a "strong" executive oversteps, they can be replaced in 4 years by a vote of We The People or they can be impeached by the Congress. Seems to me to be kinda Power Balancie. But if your Super Supreme Court oversteps, like they have recently, there is nothing that can be done, with the exception of amending the Constitution, which would be impossible today at least within a decade.

By the way your "Constitution Supremacy", didnt work at all re. Marbury. Justice Marshall pulled "judicial review" right out of his ass. He made a ruling that was not supported by the Constitution and there was no recourse by the other two branches of government nor by We The People.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

2nd amendment can be altered like all the other amendments the Xtreme court has screwed with [View all] MightyMopar Dec 2012 OP

So do we actually have to alter it to tax and register and ID guns and their owners? libdem4life Dec 2012 #1

Second does not grant a right, it requires government to protect a right. Either RKBA for jody Dec 2012 #2

says nothing about costs and does mention militia. samsingh Dec 2012 #3

The 2nd and 9th amendments means whatever the Supreme Court says it does MightyMopar Dec 2012 #5

Is that a precedent you *really* want to set? X_Digger Dec 2012 #10

Today's Supreme Court is just about whatever you can get away with. It's a clown car. MightyMopar Dec 2012 #15

WHAT precedent??? gcomeau Dec 2012 #26

Roe V. Wade you say HA HA HA HA HA HA HA so you wanna do to guns what they did to Roe? graham4anything Dec 2012 #29

You forgot to plug for "mayor stop and frisk". beevul Dec 2012 #30

Bloomberg financed the Calif. race between pro-nra and anti-nra. The anti-nra upset the pro-nra graham4anything Dec 2012 #31

You have a little fleck of spittle.. no.. other side.. up.. up.. right there. Got it. X_Digger Dec 2012 #33

Funny you should mention Lawrence v Texas Major Nikon Dec 2012 #32

Your subject line is very debatable. white_wolf Dec 2012 #27

Please read and understand SCOTUS UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. 92 U.S. 542 (1876) jody Dec 2012 #38

Kagan diagreeed as do I. white_wolf Dec 2012 #40

Agree re philosophy. I put together a DU post in 2007 that I hoped would serve as a point of jody Dec 2012 #41

Too bad I missed that post. I would have joined in, but I wasn't here in 07 n/t white_wolf Dec 2012 #42

Seems like RKBA is an excellent issue to discuss "rights" because it has divided and polarized jody Dec 2012 #43

I disagree with your conclusion. white_wolf Dec 2012 #44

In spite of DOI(1776) and PA(1776) & VT(1777) declaring that rights exist, you continue to jody Dec 2012 #45

Natural and inherent rights are a logical fallacy though. white_wolf Dec 2012 #47

I said rights are rights because people excluded them from authority to govern when they created jody Dec 2012 #48

Jefferson had his ass handed to him in Marbury vs Madison IDoMath Dec 2012 #4

Citezens United ruling has already many destroyed checks and balances MightyMopar Dec 2012 #6

So you want to abandon constitutional supremacy and have a strong executive instead? IDoMath Dec 2012 #7

The horse is long out of the barn on that one MightyMopar Dec 2012 #8

And you want to help them with that? IDoMath Dec 2012 #9

Huh? He said that lots of the so-called checks and balances have been abandoned. And you twist that rhett o rick Dec 2012 #11

It all begins in 1803 IDoMath Dec 2012 #14

Name calling voids anything you might have to say. Go away PLEASE. nm rhett o rick Dec 2012 #18

Where was I name calling in that post? IDoMath Dec 2012 #19

If you must continue. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #34

Facts and analysis are name calling? IDoMath Dec 2012 #35

And you continue. Apparently you dont think much of Thomas Jefferson. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #36

Ah yes, Marbuy vs Madison. That's where the Supreme Court said that despite what the rhett o rick Dec 2012 #12

The corporate whore Republicans have turned the Supreme Court in to a clown car MightyMopar Dec 2012 #13

Have I just walked into free republic? IDoMath Dec 2012 #16

I wont continue a discussion with someone as rude as you. nm rhett o rick Dec 2012 #17

I'm as gobsmacked as you. X_Digger Dec 2012 #20

It's a very complex system and we are essentially lied to in our schools IDoMath Dec 2012 #21

Well, any high school government class will discuss the balance of power.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #22

But the analysis is incomplete and sometimes misleading. IDoMath Dec 2012 #23

Apparently, a strong, unbalanced executive is good when it's "one of OURS"... friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #24

And that attitude can be found elsewhere at DU: friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #25

Seriously?! When did the left start opposing Judicial Review? white_wolf Dec 2012 #28

Concerning requirements we wear the same coat: The Press... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #37

Arms like cannons and grenades back then vs drones and explosives like we have now? MightyMopar Dec 2012 #39

What part of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion can be altered? 1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #46