Home - List All Discussions

Even Chief justice Roberts agrees with me

Congress controls SCOTUS, not the other way around.

by: faithman

If you don't want to believe me, then maybe one of the most brilliant legal minds will do. Congress makes exceptions and regulations as to what the court can rule on.http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html He even includes the bit about section 5 of the 14th amendment!!!!! Congress has the power to over turn Roe by a simple act of congress, and decree that the court never visit the issue again. Just read the last paragraph of the piece!!! I guess great minds think alike!!!! What about it monkey boy?

reply from: faithman

III.
Judicial pronouncements on the exceptions clause also support Congress' power to divest the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction over certain classes of cases. Any discussion of case law in this area must begin with Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869). McCardle, an unreconstructed Mississippi newspaper editor, was being held in the custody of United States marshals on the order of the military governor. He applied to the federal circuit court for habeas corpus relief, under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. This relief was denied, and McCardle thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court pursuant to the appellate review provisions of the Act of 1867. While the case was pending in the Supreme Court Congress enacted, over President Johnson's veto, an act which repealed the provisions of the Act of 1867 permitting an appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court. The legislative history of the repealer provision left no doubt that Congress' purpose was to prevent the Court from deciding the McCardle case and perhaps undermining the entire military reconstruction scheme. See Van Alstyne, supra, at 240-241.....................
A unanimous Court upheld the power of Congress to divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. The Court clearly based its decision on Congress' power under the exceptions clause. Chief Justice Chase began the opinion by recognizing that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court "is conferred 'with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.'" 74 U.S., at 513. He noted that Congress, in explicitly conferring certain appellate jurisdiction, was considered to have implicitly excepted all other jurisdiction. In the McCardle case, however, Congress had not merely exercised its power to make exceptions to appellate jurisdiction by negative implication. It had done so expressly:
"The exception to appellate jurisdiction in the case before us, however, is not an inference from the affirmation of other appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the Act of 1867, affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this Court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception." Id., at 513-514.................................
Chief Justice Chase went on to note that the Court would not decline to recognize the effect of the repealer provision because of Congress' motive to avoid a possibly objectionable Supreme Court ruling on the merits. "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words." Id, at 514 (emphasis supplied). The opinion then concluded that the Court was without jurisdiction, and that "the only function remaining to the Court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Id.

reply from: faithman

Article 3; section 2 of the U.S. Constitution ...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [In other words, the congress controls the court, not the other way around] Congress already has the power by article 14 [14th amendment] Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. to establish womb children as persons. No amendment necessary. No court ruling required. Just a simple act of congress.

reply from: faithman

Attention all Personhood folks. copy and paste this article to your e-mail lists, and distribute ASAP. Particularly hit all Prolife groups!!! So called pro-lifers are opposing personhood on the mistaken impression that the court would strike it down. If the bill is written right[particularly at the Federal level,] the court can not strike it down.congress controls the court, not the other way around. According to the piece, congress can even over ride a presidents veto. Would it be great to elect a personhood congress, and over turn roe on the criminal elects watch?!!!

reply from: faithman

http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

I do not agree with you. If you read the rest of the clause, you will see that the power of Congress to "make exceptions" doesn't apply to cases where a state "shall be party." Roe was such a case, since the State of Texas was certainly party. You have taken your quote out of context.
Also, it doesn't apply to matters of Constitutional interpretation, which is charged to the SCOTUS. The Congress may not overturn a SCOTUS decision on Constitutional interpretation. The only legal recourse, once such a decision has been rendered, is Constitutional Amendment.

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

Oh, and by the way, the section in question only gives Congress the power to "make exceptions" regarding whether the SCOTUS has original or appellate jurisdiction. It doesn't make Congress immune to our Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS, nor give them the power to essentially eliminate the SCOTUS from our government when it suits them by usurping the power granted to the courts by our Constitution. Like it or not, this is the way it is.

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

From the original poster's cited source (intro):
In other words, it is an exercise to examine the arguments, and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the author. The author is essentially playing "devil's advocate."

reply from: saucie

CP, you ASKED to be banned....do you not have an ounce of self respect...
what an idiot

reply from: Banned Member

Then he can ask to be unbanned, right?

reply from: B0zo

Do you agree or disagree with what he posted, and why?

reply from: RickAstley

I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down...

reply from: faithman

I have read all of the clause, which your monkey boy puke behind has not. The concress set the courts jurisdiction to begin with, and made sure it had full control to do so in the future. WITH, read it punk, WITH exceptions, and regulations the congress shall make. That means including what was already written. But you [ a convict jail house wife] is smarter than 2 Cheif justices? They agree with me, not you. It was the court who usurped congress, not the other way around in Roe. There was no federal law for them to rule on. There fore they had no jurisdiction in the first place. You are dead wrong, and always have been. You are just way to big of an ego maniac to admit it.

reply from: faithman

By the way Gorilla gums, go back and read the article. Chief justice Roberts, one of the most brilliant legal minds of our time, and the chief number one judge of all the land agrees with exactly what I have said. But a little light in the loafers pip squeek like you knows better, right? Get over your self, take your own advise, and get educated. You are embarassing your self borthead.

reply from: InnocentBystander

The irony here is that Justice Roberts is advocating a Constitutional amendment to nullify the Congressional authority to restrict appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as a means of settling the matter once and for all. There is division on whether the Congress has the power to the extent that some suggest, and the wording of the Constitution is interpreted differently by some than others, but there is a clear consensus that it should not have the power to exclude the SCOTUS from decisions pertaining to controversial issues.
(Quoted from OP's source)

reply from: InnocentBystander

(Excerpt from "ABUSING THE EXCEPTIONS AND REGULATIONS CLAUSE: LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS TO DIVEST THE SUPREME COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION" by Ira Mickenberg, written for the American University Law Review)

reply from: saucie

Do you agree or disagree with what he posted, and why?
mind your own business...nothng worse than a busy body posing as a clown

reply from: faithman

(Excerpt from "ABUSING THE EXCEPTIONS AND REGULATIONS CLAUSE: LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS TO DIVEST THE SUPREME COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION" by Ira Mickenberg, written for the American University Law Review)
SSSSSOOOOOOO we are to believe a piss ant professor over 2 chief justices of the supreme court? HHHHMMMM

reply from: broken

Originally posted by: ChiefJusticeRoberts
I do not agree with you. If you read the rest of the clause, you will see that the power of Congress to "make exceptions" doesn't apply to cases where a state "shall be party." Roe was such a case, since the State of Texas was certainly party. You have taken your quote out of context.
Also, it doesn't apply to matters of Constitutional interpretation, which is charged to the SCOTUS. The Congress may not overturn a SCOTUS decision on Constitutional interpretation. The only legal recourse, once such a decision has been rendered, is Constitutional Amendment.
Well then Mr. ChiefJusticeRoberts since you are claiming that the scotus has the final decision on Constitutional interpretation short of Constitutional Amendment what is your interpretation? Is a child in the womb included in the term "Person" in the constitution or not? Do you agree with the scotus opinions in roe v wade and other cases that an unborn child is not protected by the constitution as a "person" and therefore it is permissable to destroy them before birth according to your constitution?

reply from: faithman

The punk is point blank lying, and refuses the constitution, and the historical evidence. An amendment has already been passed [the 14th] and the 5th section of that amendment already gives congress the power to act. Another Point the real Chief justice Roberts made in his writing. His paper also shows that a simple act of congress stopped the court from ruling. The 3rd article makes no mention of an amendment being necessary . The monkey boy punk just likes talking out of his behind.

reply from: broken

What's the difference? Congress has upheld federally mandated child murder all along. So what if they have always had the power to stop it. They won't. They are party to it. Making regulations around the killing keeps them in office. They profit politically and financially from the continued bloodshed. It is an industry to them that they can regulate not the killing of innocent children that they care anything about. They worship their god and do his bidding. The court is there for them to hide behind and make excuse for their full participation in the slaughter.
Besides every time a vote to protect children in the womb has been put to a state in recent years it has been voted down. The people want it to continue. It is a states jurisdiction to deal with murder. A state could stop it anytime they want to. None have yet. States will oppose the feds to make pot smoking legal but they lick their boots when it comes to saving their children's lives.
The people want the killing to continue. We are getting the payback for it too as this nation is going down. Look at how many lives have been destroyed of the Survivor's generation in the recent wars. It is not just a few thousand. It is in the millions now. Anyone I know who has been in those wars and returned alive is messed up mentally or physically. Just like 911 did not kill just 3000. It is in the tens of thousands now from related illnesses and still climbing. If we do not acknowledge the Hand of judgment and humble ourselves before Him and then stop the killing justice can not be accomplished.
Please stop the name calling.

reply from: EpicFailguy

Every state should be allowed to make it legal to kill whoever they want. If we stop the SC from those pesky constitution rulings, we can do whatever we want and damn the constitution! Wut's yer constitution rights? depend wut state ya live in! Work 4 me!

reply from: broken

States have their own constitutions. The original intention of the federal constitution was to LIMIT the federal government's authority and restrict it to defined purposes as stated in the Preamble. The states were supposed to retain higher authority than the fed unless it was explicitly stated in the constitution. The states are currently slaves of the fed and don't love real freedom anymore. They don't mind giving their sons and daughters to their fed masters as offerings on the altar of liberty.

reply from: EpicFailguy

I know you right. every state that want slavery should still have that right. damn federalists and there restrictive federal goverment.

reply from: broken

That led to a war where slavery was abolished. The regiments that fought that war were state regiments. The states decided to abolish slavery and the federal constitution was amended after the war to ban it in all states. The fed certainly gained power under Lincoln.
Now the Fed dictates to the states that they must allow the killing of innocent children in each state contrary to the constitution. The court declared that children in the womb were not covered by the word "person" and therefore were not protected by the constitution 5th and 14th amendments. They made similar rulings before the Civil war that black people were not full persons either and not protected by the constitution. Many people gave their lives to end slavery in other states.
Today killing children is considered a "liberty" and mandated on all states with federal branches upholding and enforcing the killing. Things are a little different this time. It is a fact that abortion is used to keep the black population down and that is one of the intents of keeping it "legal." Could it be that the feds systematically kill black people off through abortion now? That is what statistics show. Is that the fed you like?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Excuse me?
White and Asian Americans have been breeding at less-than replacement level for almost two generations.
African Americans are the second-fastest growing demographic in this country. (second fastest to Hispanics, without the benefit of immigration!)
African American women do have more abortions, but they also have way more pregnancies, and the African American community is THRIVING!

reply from: broken

You have just admitted to the racial intents of legalized abortion as the statistics prove. You said "African American women do have more abortions, but they also have way more pregnancies." You agree that "legalized" abortion is a tool to address the "way more pregnancies." Thank you for validating the point.
If you read the population report from Pew research the statistics show that domestic black population is in decline and if it were not for immigration they are below replacement rate.
The report also shows that Hispanics will repopulate this nation as other races kill themselves off because to the greater degree Hispanics do not abort their children. They give live birth to them and have traditionally large families the way white and blacks used to do before mandated child killing by abortion in this nation was introduced in the 1970s. The Pew data also proves the other statements that were made on another thread that abortion was nearly non-existent in this nation before roe in the seventies.
Abortion has always been a racist tool as history documents. You may recall the throwing of the male Hebrew babies in the river as a very early documentation of it. The killing technology may have improved but the intents are the same, to kill people off you don't want around.
The nation is being given to Hispanics and they deserve it because they do not agree with child killing for the most part. They love their large families and many children and continue to have more as the data shows. The fed would like to find a way to indoctrinate them to our ways of heartless child murder but they are not successful because this land is being given away to people who deserve it by the Maker of the world.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: broken
You agree that "legalized" abortion is a tool to address the "way more pregnancies." Thank you for validating the point.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No, I never said that.
Furthermore, those African American women CHOOSE to have those abortions. The federal government has nothing to do with it.

reply from: broken

You did say it and it has murderous intent whether you realized it or not at the time.
Furthermore the federal government has everything to do with it because not one state is permitted to stop the killing. They are prevented by the federal agencies and powers contrary to the constitution. States are slaves to the fed when it comes to killing their children and destroying their youthful mothers and fathers.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: broken
If you read the population report from Pew research the statistics show that domestic black population is in decline and if it were not for immigration they are below replacement rate.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
WRONG!
Here are the census figures:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:xosfujJo_wkJ:www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0079.xls+birthrates+by+race&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The birthrate of African Americans is still significantly greater than that of White or Asian Americans, and African-Americans are the second fastest growng demographic in the US - just behind Hispanics.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: broken
before mandated child killing by abortion in this nation was introduced in the 1970s.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
When was anyone EVER "mandated" to have an abortion?
Women CHOOSE to have abortions. They are grateful to have access to the procedure, and plunk down good money for the priveledge.

reply from: broken

And you are grateful to let the killing and profit taking from innocent bloodshed continue.

reply from: joueravecfous

Then why not pop over to the website and post those links for us?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html

reply from: broken

The people who post here should be competent to use a search engine. It may be a little difficult to arrive at exact numbers before the fed mandated that the child killing was "legal." Perhaps the reported abortion numbers themselves before 1973 may not be entirely accurate since in most states the "procedure" was illegal. Most people would not be willing to report that they just committed a crime. The population numbers tell the story and the reported abortion numbers after roe document the exponential increase in child killing.

reply from: nancyu

continued...
http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html

reply from: nancyu

conclusion...
http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html

reply from: faithman

HHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM
Originally posted by: nancyu
Proposals to Divest the Supreme Court of Appellate Jurisdiction: An Analysis in Light of Recent Developments
John Roberts (Special Assistant to the Attorney General)

Reproduced from the Holdings of the: National Archives & Records Administration Record Group 60
Department of Justice Files of William Bradford Reynolds 1981-88
Accession # 60-89-0173 Box: 5 Folder: 1522- Supreme Court Jurisdiction

The source of Congress' power to remove certain classes of cases from Supreme Court appellate review is found in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
..................
The underscored language stands as a plenary grant of power to Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The exceptions clause by its terms contains no limit; the power to make exceptions to the Court's appellate jurisdiction exists by virtue of the express language of the clause over questions of both law and fact.....................
As Professor Van Alstyne has put it:
"The power to make exceptions to Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction is a plenary power. It is given in express terms and without limitation, regardless of the more modest uses that might have been anticipated, and hopefully, generally to be respected by Congress as a matter of enlightened policy once the power was granted, as it was, to the fullest extent. In short, the clause is complete exactly as it stands: the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is subject to 'such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'" Van Alstyne, A Critical Guide to Ex Parte McCardle, 15 Ariz. L. Rev. 229, 260 (1973)....................................
. Marshall himself discussed the exceptions clause in the following terms:
"What is the meaning of the term exception? Does .it not mean an alteration or diminution? Congress is empowered to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction as to law and fact, of the Supreme Court. These exceptions certainly go as far as the legislature may think proper for the interest and liberty of the people." 3 Elliott 560.
......................
A unanimous Court upheld the power of Congress to divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. The Court clearly based its decision on Congress' power under the exceptions clause. Chief Justice Chase began the opinion by recognizing that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court "is conferred 'with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.'" 74 U.S., at 513. He noted that Congress, in explicitly conferring certain appellate jurisdiction, was considered to have implicitly excepted all other jurisdiction. In the McCardle case, however, Congress had not merely exercised its power to make exceptions to appellate jurisdiction by negative implication. It had done so expressly:.............................
Chief Justice Chase went on to note that the Court would not decline to recognize the effect of the repealer provision because of Congress' motive to avoid a possibly objectionable Supreme Court ruling on the merits. "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words." Id, at 514 (emphasis supplied). The opinion then concluded that the Court was without jurisdiction, and that "the only function remaining to the Court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Id.
............................
"The appellate jurisdiction is . . . qualified; in as much as it is given 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress shall make.' Here then, is the ground, and the only ground, on which we can sustain an appeal. If Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise an appellate jurisdiction; and if the rule is provided, we cannot depart from it."
...........................
Chief Justice Marshall also drew the connection between an implicit exercise of the exceptions power and the theory that appellate jurisdiction is dependent on congressional action in United States v. More, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 159, 173 (1805): "as the jurisdiction of the Court has been described, it has been regulated by Congress, and an affirmative description of its powers must be understood as a regulation, under the Constitution, prohibiting the exercise of other powers than those described." The point was made even more explicit five years later, in Marshall's opinion for the Court in Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 307, 313-314 (1810): "when the first legislature of the union proceeded to carry the third Article into effect, it must be understood as intending to execute the power they possessed of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court . . . ."
Chief Justice Waite wrote for a unanimous Court that "not only may whole classes of cases be kept out of the jurisdiction altogether, but particular classes of questions may be subjected to re-examination and review, while others are not." The Chief Justice specifically referred to "that the)power to except from -- take out of -- the jurisdiction, both as to law and fact" and noted that "the general power to regulate implies power to regulate in all things." As the Court concluded in Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138, 141 (1893), "it has been held in an uninterrupted series of decisions that this Court exercises appellate jurisdiction only in accordance with the acts of Congress upon the subject." Again, it bears emphasis that the basis for this theory is the implicit exercise by Congress of its exceptions power when it makes a limited grant of jurisdiction.
............

reply from: broken

Every state should be allowed to make it legal to kill whoever they want. If we stop the SC from those pesky constitution rulings, we can do whatever we want and damn the constitution! Wut's yer constitution rights? depend wut state ya live in! Work 4 me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 14th amendment says
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the fed have every responsibility to prevent all states from depriving a Person of life. They used roe to say that children in the womb were not Persons and so they could be exterminated according to a woman's will in the name of liberty from the same amendment. They said that no state had the right anymore to deprive a woman of the liberty to kill a child before birth. States were mandated to allow continual murder of innocent babies. Other federal laws since then have been written specifically to keep the killing going with the federal agencies as the enforcers of the slaughter.
The federal government has no right to require states to allow unprosecuted murders within their states and every constitutional responsibility to prevent those murders and prevent states from allowing it. At the very least states have the repsonsibility to prevent innocent bloodshed in their state with local law enforcement and to prosecute murderers for their crimes. No state should allow the federal government to dictate that murders must be allowed within the states borders. States are no more than slaves of wickedness at this time and we are all paying for it.

reply from: faithman

Every state should be allowed to make it legal to kill whoever they want. If we stop the SC from those pesky constitution rulings, we can do whatever we want and damn the constitution! Wut's yer constitution rights? depend wut state ya live in! Work 4 me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 14th amendment says
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the fed have every responsibility to prevent all states from depriving a Person of life. They used roe to say that children in the womb were not Persons and so they could be exterminated according to a woman's will in the name of liberty from the same amendment. They said that no state had the right anymore to deprive a woman of the liberty to kill a child before birth. States were mandated to allow continual murder of innocent babies. Other federal laws since then have been written specifically to keep the killing going with the federal agencies as the enforcers of the slaughter.
The federal government has no right to require states to allow unprosecuted murders within their states and every constitutional responsibility to prevent those murders and prevent states from allowing it. At the very least states have the repsonsibility to prevent innocent bloodshed in their state with local law enforcement and to prosecute murderers for their crimes. No state should allow the federal government to dictate that murders must be allowed within the states borders. States are no more than slaves of wickedness at this time and we are all paying for it.
spot on

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
WRONG!
Abortion was legal in many states before Roe.
Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion legislation in the entire US into law in 1967 as Governor of California. The bill placed virtually no restrictions on abortion.

reply from: broken

Is that the first one? Give us the whole breakdown by state and date up to Roe so we have exact information. Are you saying the process started in some states in the late 60s? How many states was abortion still illegal in when roe was decided? Your data can only prove the analysis correct.
Didn't Colorado legalize it in some cases also around 1970. Wasn't it Colorado that was home to the largest school shooting to date 30 years later.
Go ahead and strain out the gnats while you swallow the camel. It sounds pathetic and desperate to justify your arguments to murder the innocent.

reply from: Banned Member

What on earth do the Columbine Shootings in 1999 have to do with legalised abortion in 1970?

reply from: Spinwubby

What on earth do the Columbine Shootings in 1999 have to do with legalised abortion in 1970?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Can't you people see the TRUTH!?
In 1979 Disco music reaches peak popularity in the US.
Two decades later, 15 people die of gunshot wounds at Columbine High School.
IT'S ALL CONNECTED!

reply from: broken

It is adults responsibilty to teach the young moral behaviour. It is governments responsibility to have just laws that protect the innocent and punish the criminals. When you cheapen life through teaching and statute the youth take note and learn their lessons well because being righteous is not our natural nature. When you tell children it is acceptable to take innocent life if it suits them they comply with your immoral precedent and do as they please. You cannot teach children that it is acceptable to take lives if they choose to and expect them to act differently than taught. It is all connected. Accurate observation.

reply from: Banned Member

What on earth do the Columbine Shootings in 1999 have to do with legalised abortion in 1970?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's all the fault of the albinos.
DAMN YOU ALBINOOOOOOOS!

reply from: Banned Member

They're all from Albania, donchaknow.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Well YEAH!
Here is a pack of nude militant albinos perfectly camouflaged in an http://wendyusuallywanders.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/snow-drift.jpg

reply from: Spinwubby

C'mon! We all know what kicked off the Columbine shooting on April 20th, 1999:
"Senor Wences, ventriloquist best known for his appearances on the Ed Sullivan show, died April 20, 1999 at the age of 103."
Some people say it's a coincidence, but I know there's a connection...

reply from: Banned Member

Clearly the US is vulnerable to attack in winter.
Invade Albania, at all cost!
(P.S. do they have oil there?)

reply from: nancyu

echo...echo...echo...
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

reply from: faithman

http://www.popularsovereignty.org/congress.html

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

Reading comprehension is your friend... This passage excludes cases in which a state shall be party, such as a Constitutional challenge against state law. Otherwise, the states would be free to ignore the constitution, essentially interpreting it as they see fit with no oversight from the federal judiciary. The Constitution is written so as to prevent that, giving the federal courts original jurisdiction in such cases.

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

Every state should be allowed to make it legal to kill whoever they want. If we stop the SC from those pesky constitution rulings, we can do whatever we want and damn the constitution! Wut's yer constitution rights? depend wut state ya live in! Work 4 me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 14th amendment says
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the fed have every responsibility to prevent all states from depriving a Person of life. They used roe to say that children in the womb were not Persons and so they could be exterminated according to a woman's will in the name of liberty from the same amendment. They said that no state had the right anymore to deprive a woman of the liberty to kill a child before birth. States were mandated to allow continual murder of innocent babies. Other federal laws since then have been written specifically to keep the killing going with the federal agencies as the enforcers of the slaughter.
The federal government has no right to require states to allow unprosecuted murders within their states and every constitutional responsibility to prevent those murders and prevent states from allowing it. At the very least states have the repsonsibility to prevent innocent bloodshed in their state with local law enforcement and to prosecute murderers for their crimes. No state should allow the federal government to dictate that murders must be allowed within the states borders. States are no more than slaves of wickedness at this time and we are all paying for it.
The SCOTUS never said unborn children were not "persons."
Fail...

reply from: faithman

Every state should be allowed to make it legal to kill whoever they want. If we stop the SC from those pesky constitution rulings, we can do whatever we want and damn the constitution! Wut's yer constitution rights? depend wut state ya live in! Work 4 me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 14th amendment says
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the fed have every responsibility to prevent all states from depriving a Person of life. They used roe to say that children in the womb were not Persons and so they could be exterminated according to a woman's will in the name of liberty from the same amendment. They said that no state had the right anymore to deprive a woman of the liberty to kill a child before birth. States were mandated to allow continual murder of innocent babies. Other federal laws since then have been written specifically to keep the killing going with the federal agencies as the enforcers of the slaughter.
The federal government has no right to require states to allow unprosecuted murders within their states and every constitutional responsibility to prevent those murders and prevent states from allowing it. At the very least states have the repsonsibility to prevent innocent bloodshed in their state with local law enforcement and to prosecute murderers for their crimes. No state should allow the federal government to dictate that murders must be allowed within the states borders. States are no more than slaves of wickedness at this time and we are all paying for it.
The SCOTUS never said unborn children were not "persons."
Fail...
Yes they basicly did. They said personhood was ambiguos. They hid behind a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and a lot of false legaleez, but the effect was a denial of personhood for the womb child. It also left the door open to their authority, congress, to atribute personhood to the preborn. Only a borthead fool would try to obscure these facts.

reply from: faithman

http://www.popularsovereignty.org/congress.html

reply from: faithman

Reading comprehension is your friend... This passage excludes cases in which a state shall be party, such as a Constitutional challenge against state law. Otherwise, the states would be free to ignore the constitution, essentially interpreting it as they see fit with no oversight from the federal judiciary. The Constitution is written so as to prevent that, giving the federal courts original jurisdiction in such cases.
And of course the monkey boy punk ignores WITH EXCEPTIONS But stupid baboons are imune to facts. All they can do is sling their dung from mis-direction trees. Several Supreme court justices, and a long history of constitutional action seem to be lost on the 5th column punk.

reply from: faithman

Chief Justice Marshall also drew the connection between an implicit exercise of the exceptions power and the theory that appellate jurisdiction is dependent on congressional action in United States v. More, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 159, 173 (1805): "as the jurisdiction of the Court has been described, it has been regulated by Congress, and an affirmative description of its powers must be understood as a regulation, under the Constitution, prohibiting the exercise of other powers than those described." The point was made even more explicit five years later, in Marshall's opinion for the Court in Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 307, 313-314 (1810): "when the first legislature of the union proceeded to carry the third Article into effect, it must be understood as intending to execute the power they possessed of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court . . . ."

reply from: EpicFailguy

Reading comprehension is your friend... This passage excludes cases in which a state shall be party, such as a Constitutional challenge against state law. Otherwise, the states would be free to ignore the constitution, essentially interpreting it as they see fit with no oversight from the federal judiciary. The Constitution is written so as to prevent that, giving the federal courts original jurisdiction in such cases.
And of course the monkey boy punk ignores WITH EXCEPTIONS<AND REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE!!! But stupid baboons are imune to facts. All they can do is sling their dung from mis-direction trees. Several Supreme court justices, and a long history of constitutional action seem to be lost on the 5th column punk.
You seem unable (or perhaps unwilling) to comprehend the most basic points. You ignore the facts in favor of a view that is more attractive to you based on personal agendas. You are completely lacking in objectivity.
This is why we can't have nice things...
Interested parties might find the article at this link enlightening:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=935368

reply from: EpicFailguy

(from article at previous link)

reply from: faithman

(from article at previous link)
And then the butt nugget conveniantly leaves out the exceptions clause. Nice try though.

reply from: EpicFailguy

(from article at previous link)
And then the butt nugget conveniantly leaves out the exceptions clause. Nice try though.
What part of this do you not understand? Simply chanting "exceptions" does not refute the arguments....

reply from: nancyu

Reading comprehension is your friend... This passage excludes cases in which a state shall be party, such as a Constitutional challenge against state law. Otherwise, the states would be free to ignore the constitution, essentially interpreting it as they see fit with no oversight from the federal judiciary. The Constitution is written so as to prevent that, giving the federal courts original jurisdiction in such cases.
The State was not a party in Roe Vs Wade. The defendent in Roe Vs Wade was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Henry B. Wade.
Now which state's law would you be referring to specifically?

reply from: nancyu

(from article at previous link)
And then the butt nugget conveniantly leaves out the exceptions clause. Nice try though.
What part of this do you not understand? Simply chanting "exceptions" does not refute the arguments....
uh...actually...yes. It does. The power to make "exceptions" is IN the Constitution.
(You don't get to just leave out the parts you don't like.)

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

Reading comprehension is your friend... This passage excludes cases in which a state shall be party, such as a Constitutional challenge against state law. Otherwise, the states would be free to ignore the constitution, essentially interpreting it as they see fit with no oversight from the federal judiciary. The Constitution is written so as to prevent that, giving the federal courts original jurisdiction in such cases.
The State was not a party in Roe Vs Wade. The defendent in Roe Vs Wade was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Henry B. Wade.
Mr.Wade represented the State of Texas. He was not present at the final "Roe v Wade" hearing, his presence not being required since he was not an actual litigant. Note that the final hearing was not called "Roe v Flowers." Flowers also represented the State of Texas in "Roe v Wade." A district attorney is not personally challenged in such a case, the challenge is against state law on Constitutional grounds, which gives the SCOTUS original jurisdiction over the case according to the Constitution, which also gives Congress no power to deny that jurisdiction.
I recommend you read the article cited by EpicFailguy.

reply from: nancyu

Then why was it not Roe Vs the State of Texas?

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

(from article at previous link)
And then the butt nugget conveniantly leaves out the exceptions clause. Nice try though.
What part of this do you not understand? Simply chanting "exceptions" does not refute the arguments....
uh...actually...yes. It does. The power to make "exceptions" is IN the Constitution.
(You don't get to just leave out the parts you don't like.)
Uh, no, it doesn't. You are the one who is apparently joining "Faithman" in ignoring everything that precedes the mention of "exceptions."
Once more:
"Other cases," meaning other than what? The SCOTUShas "original jurisdiction" in some cases, appellate jurisdiction in others, "with such exceptions...as Congress shall make." Exceptions to what, then? Exceptions to whether the SCOTUS has original or appellate jurisdiction, not exceptions as to whether the SCOTUS shall have jurisdiction. Preceding sections ensure that the SCOTUS shall have jurisdiction, the exceptions clause merely addresses whether that jurisdiction shall be original or appellate, and gives Congress some power over deciding whether appellate jurisdiction should be made original. It gives Congress no power over cases Constitutionally decreed to fall under the original jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, and no power to deprive the SCOTUS of "supreme" judicial power over any case.

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

Texas State laws restricting abortion. I can look up the statutes if you insist, but this should be redundant. Surely it is common knowledge that the issue was a Constitutional challenge against Texas law...

reply from: ChiefJusticeRoberts

Procedural technicality. The fact remains that Mr. Wade represented the State of Texas, but only once in the Supreme Court. The action was not against Mr. Wade himself.

reply from: nancyu

I don't believe a word you say cp. You have shown yourself time and again to be a liar with good debating skills.
This phrase:
"...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Is clearly and obviously bestowing on Congress the power to make exceptions AND place regulations upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And judging by the article that faithman sourced this power has been used before.
Good day CP, I won't waste further time arguing with a dishonest person.

reply from: EpicFailguy

I only trust people who tell the truth, like abortion is illegal, and the state of Texas was not party in Roe. Everybody who disagrees with me is a liar, even if I'm simply not understanding some things, or refusing to accept what should be obvious. That's the American way, and reflects the attitude of my beloved and righteous "moral right."

reply from: EpicFailguy

Good day CP, I won't waste further time arguing with a dishonest person.
You appear to be "leaving out the parts you don't like..."

reply from: faithman

Reading comprehension is your friend... This passage excludes cases in which a state shall be party, such as a Constitutional challenge against state law. Otherwise, the states would be free to ignore the constitution, essentially interpreting it as they see fit with no oversight from the federal judiciary. The Constitution is written so as to prevent that, giving the federal courts original jurisdiction in such cases.
The State was not a party in Roe Vs Wade. The defendent in Roe Vs Wade was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Henry B. Wade.
Mr.Wade represented the State of Texas. He was not present at the final "Roe v Wade" hearing, his presence not being required since he was not an actual litigant. Note that the final hearing was not called "Roe v Flowers." Flowers also represented the State of Texas in "Roe v Wade." A district attorney is not personally challenged in such a case, the challenge is against state law on Constitutional grounds, which gives the SCOTUS original jurisdiction over the case according to the Constitution, which also gives Congress no power to deny that jurisdiction.
I recommend you read the article cited by EpicFailguy.
Sorry punk, but the evidence does not agree with your ignorance.
Justice Chase went on to note that the Court would not decline to recognize the effect of the repealer provision because of Congress' motive to avoid a possibly objectionable Supreme Court ruling on the merits. "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words." Id, at 514 (emphasis supplied). The opinion then concluded that the Court was without jurisdiction, and that "the only function remaining to the Court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Id. ............................ "The appellate jurisdiction is . . . qualified; in as much as it is given 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress shall make.' Here then, is the ground, and the only ground, on which we can sustain an appeal. If Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise an appellate jurisdiction; and if the rule is provided, we cannot depart from it." ........................... Chief Justice Marshall also drew the connection between an implicit exercise of the exceptions power and the theory that appellate jurisdiction is dependent on congressional action in United States v. More, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 159, 173 (1805): "as the jurisdiction of the Court has been described, it has been regulated by Congress, and an affirmative description of its powers must be understood as a regulation, under the Constitution, prohibiting the exercise of other powers than those described." The point was made even more explicit five years later, in Marshall's opinion for the Court in Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 307, 313-314 (1810): "when the first legislature of the union proceeded to carry the third Article into effect, it must be understood as intending to execute the power they possessed of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

reply from: EpicFailguy

Somebody is having difficulty understanding the difference between appellate and original jurisdiction, and the fact that the Constitution itself gives the SCOTUS clear jurisdiction over "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."
Note that I am quoting the entire section rather than taking only part of a sentence out of context....It is necessary that the reader be capable of comprehending more than a few words in succession (and willing to do so, intellectually honest...) in order to understand this. My most sincere sympathies are offered to those who fail to meet the qualifications.

reply from: nancyu

Plenary Main Entry: ple·na·ry
Pronunciation: \?pl?-n?-r?, ?ple-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin plenarius, from Latin plenus full - more at full
Date: 15th century
1 : complete in every respect : absolute, unqualified <plenary power>
2 : fully attended or constituted by all entitled to be present <a plenary session>
synonyms see full
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Plenary

reply from: EpicFailguy

Anticipated response:
"Punk, homosexual, liar, etc." + repost of arguments already addressed ad nauseum....Arguments taken from a 3 decade old exercise in which the author concedes in the intro:

reply from: EpicFailguy

Yes, but this does not imply any power over cases the Constitution gives the SCOTUS original jurisdiction, nor is it implied that the exceptions to be applied mean anything other than exception to appellate jurisdiction, the exception being to transfer original jurisdiction to the SCOTUS in cases where the Constitution does not explicitly give the SCOTUS original jurisdiction.
Even this limited power is not truly "plenary," since it can be revoked by the people through Constitutional Amendment, so your source is arguably mistaken (aside from the fact that the quote is being misrepresented here).

reply from: EpicFailguy

"All other cases" is a "limitation" as it appears in the part you omitted in your previous quote of the section in question. It applies (is limited to) only to cases where the SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction. It is also "limited" by previously declared Constitutional duties of the SCOTUS, among them being supremacy over all other courts.

reply from: nancyu

Says you. One person who lacks credibility, pretending to be three.

reply from: EpicFailguy

Right, and abortion is "not legal."

reply from: nancyu

But not over Congress.

reply from: nancyu

Right, and abortion is "not legal."
That's correct, you've finally come to your senses.

reply from: EpicFailguy

But not over Congress.
Wait, wut? I readily concede this irrelevant point. Neither Congress nor the SCOTUS has any "supremacy" not granted in the Constitution. The Constitution gives the SCOTUS supremacy (literally using the word "supreme"), and makes no concession that would allow Congress to remove that supremacy. It gives Congress only the power to give original jurisdiction to the SCOTUS in cases where only appellate jurisdiction is recognized. If Congress had the power to deny the SCOTUS the power to preside over any case they chose, that would essentially nullify all power the court holds, giving the Congress full control over the judiciary. They could do away with the SCOTUS altogether by simply denying them any jurisdiction. How ridiculous is that?

reply from: EpicFailguy

The Constitution controls the Congress and the SCOTUS. Neither the Congress nor the SCOTUS "control" the other. If they did, we would only need the branch that had control, since the other branch would have no real authority.

reply from: nancyu

But not over Congress.
Wait, wut? I readily concede this irrelevant point. Neither Congress nor the SCOTUS has any "supremacy" not granted in the Constitution. The Constitution gives the SCOTUS supremacy (literally using the word "supreme"), and makes no concession that would allow Congress to remove that supremacy.
I think the argument being made here is that it does just that with the exceptions clause
They wouldn't do that. I'm sure the authors didn't think the SCOTUS would abuse their power the way they did with Roe V Wade. But they did, and for that maybe they should have been done away with, at least for as long as it would take to find new justices.
Regarding your previous argument, you've convinced me that whether or not the state is a party, only deals with whether they have original or appellate jurisdiction. So it seems to me the exceptions clause would apply either way.

reply from: EpicFailguy

The decision in Roe may have been wrong, but it was made through the proper Constitutional channels. The founders absolutely had concerns regarding abuses by the judiciary, but our means of redress is constitutional amendment, not usurpation of the constitutional authority of the judiciary by the legislative branch of government.

reply from: faithman

Once again you are wrong. The congress already has authority to strike roe down with a simple act. Article 3 section 2, and amendment 14 section 5, as well as opinions of several supreme court justices do not agree with you. Roe did not come thru proper channels. The court pulled it out of their secular humanist asses and usurped the congress by making law from the bench. There was nothing for the court to rule on, and they should have no billed the issue straight away.

reply from: EpicFailguy

Fail....
Even if Congress could deny the SCOTUS jurisdiction over cases where the Constitution gives it original jurisdiction, it still can't veto a decision already made in the court. The only legal recourse at this point is Constitutional Amendment.
No matter how many times you repeat your assertions, the facts remain unchanged.

reply from: faithman

Fail....
Even if Congress could deny the SCOTUS jurisdiction over cases where the Constitution gives it original jurisdiction, it still can't veto a decision already made in the court. The only legal recourse at this point is Constitutional Amendment.
No matter how many times you repeat your assertions, the facts remain unchanged.
The only thing you have right on this post is the facts remain unchanged. History, the constitution, and the opinions of several chief justices do not agree with you. The information has been posted to prove you are a snub ignorant dumb ass egotist. The amendment has already been past [14th] giving congress all the authority it needs to over turn roe by a simple act. But do blather on monkey boy. You must enjoy making a baboon fool of yourself.

reply from: EpicFailguy

Please highlight the portion of the 14th Amendment you believe can be interpreted as granting Congress the power to over rule the SCOTUS....
Truth be told, you're just playing "no, u," aren't you? You think whoever has the last word wins? Also, the name calling reeks of butthurt and frustration. It lends no credibility to your arguments. (just so you know)

reply from: faithman

Truth be told, you're just playing "no, u," aren't you? You think whoever has the last word wins? Also, the name calling reeks of butthurt and frustration. It lends no credibility to your arguments. (just so you know)
First of all butt nugget, I am not playing. It is obvious you have not read the article, nor my posts. Section 5 gives congress the authority to make a simple act to atribute personhood to the womb child. The current supreme court justice has said so in the article I posted. And just so you know, I could really care less about what you think. You are a snarky little no body who chooses to ignore the history, Chief justices rulings, the contitution, and acts of congress.

reply from: Spock

Sensors are detecting massive amounts of butthurt in this sector, Captain. I recommend engaging warp drive.

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

Make it so, number one.

reply from: Sulu

Engaging warp drive.....
Up to warp 5, sir, but the singularity is still holding us...

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

I'll take the helm.
Take us to warp ten, Mr. Sulu.

reply from: Scotty

I dinna think she's gonna hold, Captin, the butthurt is overheating the reactor core

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

Allright, I'ma chargin' muh lazers!

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

Fire on that Fatman, now!

reply from: faithman

http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

Get us out of here!
You have the bridge, Spock....

reply from: faithman

http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html

reply from: faithman

http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html

reply from: faithman

Every state should be allowed to make it legal to kill whoever they want. If we stop the SC from those pesky constitution rulings, we can do whatever we want and damn the constitution! Wut's yer constitution rights? depend wut state ya live in! Work 4 me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 14th amendment says
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the fed have every responsibility to prevent all states from depriving a Person of life. They used roe to say that children in the womb were not Persons and so they could be exterminated according to a woman's will in the name of liberty from the same amendment. They said that no state had the right anymore to deprive a woman of the liberty to kill a child before birth. States were mandated to allow continual murder of innocent babies. Other federal laws since then have been written specifically to keep the killing going with the federal agencies as the enforcers of the slaughter.
The federal government has no right to require states to allow unprosecuted murders within their states and every constitutional responsibility to prevent those murders and prevent states from allowing it. At the very least states have the repsonsibility to prevent innocent bloodshed in their state with local law enforcement and to prosecute murderers for their crimes. No state should allow the federal government to dictate that murders must be allowed within the states borders. States are no more than slaves of wickedness at this time and we are all paying for it.
spot on

reply from: Banned Member

is like over 80 pages of this but i think you get the picture, mr it obvious you dint read the stuff

reply from: Shenanigans

I have to recuise myself, I'm a Picard fan!

reply from: faithman

Deep space 9 reminds me of the large empty black space between a borthead phony's ears.

reply from: broken

Yes, continue your mocking attitude and jokes at the plight if the innocent. Laugh it up for now. Fill the cup of wrath to overflowing till He makes you drink it down and laughs at you. Try to recall the good ole days when you had your fun at the expense of helpless children. Don't be upset when no one is found to plead your cause and your final outcome is celebrated by the angels and the penitent.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics