US Constitution dissed by Supreme Court Justice

[hi-power]

The fox is guarding the henhouse in that regard. All branches of government should've had term limits...as it has turned out. I don't think our founding fathers envisioned career politicians?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I believe I heard Mark Levin say that in the beginning, being a representative or senator was seen as volunteering for civic duty. The pay was negligible and the time they had to spend doing it caused hardships in their personal lives. They couldn't wait to finish their terms and get back to their farms or businesses. Times have indeed changed.

[EconDoc]

Overall, our founding fathers did a pretty good job; however, when they penned in the part about federal judges being appointed for life, they really screwed the pooch, IMO.

At the time when they wrote the Constitution, British judges served at the pleasure of the British Crown. The King could remove and replace judges at will. Would we really want Obama to be able to remove and replace judges at will?

[JP171]

If you're not willing to change the constitution the way it's supposed to be changed, you're advocating an overthrow of the US Govt.

I'm pretty sure I didn't sacrifice 10 years of military service to watch people advocate that, I don't care what position that person holds.

OC, if I am reading this right then you would support a tyranical government just because they are 'The GOVERNMENT" I spent 14 years in the military service of this country. I do not advocate the overthrow of our legal government, I however will when Obama declares himself Emporer/Prime Minister or what ever you would call a single person who took power unfettered against this country. I would do this regardless if the law was changed to allow it or not, and as we all know Obama is pushing for this kind of "change" and I personally will stand idley by as we become a group of subjects.

[mamabearCali]

If we have a problem with the text of the constitution there is a mechanism in place to amend it. Our problem though is not the text, but what the text has been twisted to say. The constitution is clear it is our ridiculous legislators/judges that have twisted it to further their own (often statist) agendas. Justice Ginsberg needs a refresher course on the constitution, perhaps she can get a gov't course at her local high school.

[Oldgringo]

Overall, our founding fathers did a pretty good job; however, when they penned in the part about federal judges being appointed for life, they really screwed the pooch, IMO.

At the time when they wrote the Constitution, British judges served at the pleasure of the British Crown. The King could remove and replace judges at will. Would we really want Obama to be able to remove and replace judges at will?

Of couse not

[OldCannon]

If you're not willing to change the constitution the way it's supposed to be changed, you're advocating an overthrow of the US Govt.

I'm pretty sure I didn't sacrifice 10 years of military service to watch people advocate that, I don't care what position that person holds.

OC, if I am reading this right then you would support a tyranical government just because they are 'The GOVERNMENT" I spent 14 years in the military service of this country. I do not advocate the overthrow of our legal government, I however will when Obama declares himself Emporer/Prime Minister or what ever you would call a single person who took power unfettered against this country. I would do this regardless if the law was changed to allow it or not, and as we all know Obama is pushing for this kind of "change" and I personally will stand idley by as we become a group of subjects.

No, I think you read it the opposite way. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath also swore to protect the president. I cannot stand Obama and what he is attempting to do, but we have a system for change. If he and his cronies want to follow that system and attempt to change it, so be it (not that it could happen). What bothers me greatly is his new groupthink mantra of "We Can't Wait", which is basically saying, "Hey, this messy Constitution is getting in my way, let's bypass it!" Makes me grit my teeth something fierce every time I hear him say that. Fortunately, we have a nice system in place to replace the president coming at the end of this year. To which most of us say, "We Can't Wait!"

[rcasady]

Overall, our founding fathers did a pretty good job; however, when they penned in the part about federal judges being appointed for life, they really screwed the pooch, IMO.

[chasfm11]

It is doubtful that our founders ever meant for the commerce clause to be interpreted and used the way it has been, not to mention misinterpretation of the 2nd, and even the 5th, they probably thought the language was quite clear.

To me, the greatest long term threat to our Republic is those who continue to twist the words that were clear to mean the exact opposite of the original intent. A terrorist can schedule an assault but the insidious ripping of the fabric of the Constitution by those in power who can never be blamed for their actions is much more terrifying.

If anyone has any doubt about how that twisting occurs, this should remove it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rt/248304/

[atticus]

Dear Ruth cited with approval the South African constitution and the Canadian individual rights document for the proposition that the Egyptian constitution should include expressions of "basic human rights." She appears to scorn the U.S. Constitution. The dear former general counsel for the ACLU, still a reliable hack for the left, seems to miss the point that our Constitution protects human rights by limiting the central government. What good are so-called rights on a piece of paper when the fascist government can run your life, with little more concern for the individual than 1984's Big Brother?

[Heartland Patriot]

If you're not willing to change the constitution the way it's supposed to be changed, you're advocating an overthrow of the US Govt.

I'm pretty sure I didn't sacrifice 10 years of military service to watch people advocate that, I don't care what position that person holds.

OC, if I am reading this right then you would support a tyranical government just because they are 'The GOVERNMENT" I spent 14 years in the military service of this country. I do not advocate the overthrow of our legal government, I however will when Obama declares himself Emporer/Prime Minister or what ever you would call a single person who took power unfettered against this country. I would do this regardless if the law was changed to allow it or not, and as we all know Obama is pushing for this kind of "change" and I personally will stand idley by as we become a group of subjects.

Here is the trick and I use this for the example. They DON'T "pry them from your cold, dead hands"...they take them away one little rule and regulation at a time. And while that applies to our right to keep and bear arms, it also applies to every other right we SHOULD enjoy as Americans who know better...the methods they use are often slow and insidious. They reinforce those rules and regulations with a variety of methods such as social pressure, education of OUR CHILDREN in the public schools system (both primary, secondary and higher), law enforcement (of course) and a host of other small strategies...it sounds all well and good for what BOTH of you advocate: either waiting it out and using our system to fix the problem OR resorting to more stringent methods to correct a distinct and threatening ill...however, neither one may work, due to apathy...too many people seem to care about what cell phone they are going to buy next, what the Kardashians are up to, which football player did how many steroids, the latest "funny" joke from the likes of Alec Baldwin, and a million other items that are basically a load of manure...this forum is an excellent place for us to come and hash things out, but we are an exception and not a rule...when you can figure out how to "fix" all those blockheads out there, then MAYBE either one of you can see your plan to "fix" this country come to fruition. I pray that you, or someone else, does so soon.

[APynckel]

Why doesn't someone set legal precident to hold our elected officials to their oath of office, instead of treating it as just a formality?

These people who use the constitution as a door mat need to be ousted. How can you have a country defined a document, that doesn't follow that document?

[Heartland Patriot]

Why doesn't someone set legal precident to hold our elected officials to their oath of office, instead of treating it as just a formality?

These people who use the constitution as a door mat need to be ousted. How can you have a country defined a document, that doesn't follow that document?

Holding someone accountable usually means negative consequences if they don't do what they are supposed to do. WHO would administer said negative consequences to those who don't comply with their oath?

[APynckel]

Why doesn't someone set legal precident to hold our elected officials to their oath of office, instead of treating it as just a formality?

These people who use the constitution as a door mat need to be ousted. How can you have a country defined a document, that doesn't follow that document?

Holding someone accountable usually means negative consequences if they don't do what they are supposed to do. WHO would administer said negative consequences to those who don't comply with their oath?

Ejection from current and all future holdings of public office, for anyone who signs or endorses a bill ruled unconstitutional, or any holder of public office found to have accepted money from private interest groups, or engaged in insider trading.

In all honesty, I'd like to see them publicly humiliated while shacked in a Pillory.

[Dragonfighter]

No, I think you read it the opposite way. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath also swore to protect the president.? I cannot stand Obama and what he is attempting to do, but we have a system for change. If he and his cronies want to follow that system and attempt to change it, so be it (not that it could happen). What bothers me greatly is his new group think mantra of "We Can't Wait", which is basically saying, "Hey, this messy Constitution is getting in my way, let's bypass it!" Makes me grit my teeth something fierce every time I hear him say that. Fortunately, we have a nice system in place to replace the president coming at the end of this year. To which most of us say, "We Can't Wait!" emphasis mine

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. emphasis mine

Any person subject to this chapter who–

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

A lawful order must not violate another section of the UCMJ , the U.S. Constitution or USC.(I.E. - Taking arms against the civil population as in Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 or Billeting of Soldiers as delineated in the 3rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

If even the commander in chief gives his/her army an order that is unlawful and we follow it, we are culpable. In fact many have been convicted for that very thing. Now whether the practical reality exonerates us in the end or not, when disobeying an unlawful order, it is our moral duty to do so.

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it. ff

Within our dates of enlistment, active duty and obligations (inactive reserve) the UCMJ applies to us. In either case we swore to "defend and protect" the constitution against "...ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes those that would destroy it to their own purpose. We did not swear to protect the president of the United States but to obey his orders within regulations. Don't really know where I was going with this or why I was compelled to write it but I have been ruminating on it some.