TexasCHLforum.com

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg during an Egyptian television interview said:

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012......"

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ruth-b ... s-a-guide/

puma guy wrote:Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg during an Egyptian television interview said:

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012......"

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ruth-b ... s-a-guide/

Well, what a surprise. A liberal who doesn't support the constitution.

I'm shocked.

Really.

The worst part is ONE of the White House Occupier's biggest reasons for re-election is to be able to stack the court ala FDR. SOME of those folks on the bench are pretty old...and the balance is VERY precarious...just ONE less conservative and ONE more leftist and kiss your backside goodbye...the world will head for a new Dark Age at a rapid pace at that point because when this nation goes down, there will be NOTHING to hold it back, nor even slow it down. And THAT is one of the reasons why I despise collectivist ideologies: they say that one person makes no difference, that individuals don't count, that only "the masses" matter...but ONE Supreme Court Justice can be all the difference in the world...and yes, I really believe that.

I have a question, and I'm sure many others have considered this. Any of us that ever served in our military service had to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Anyone who holds any type of office in our country has to take that same oath. I'm not the smartest guy around any where, but it seems like some people could be really nailed, legally on this one. Maybe even Supreme Court Justices? I don't know who would be able to bring this to the forefront, but it really strikes a chord with me. I've had this on my mind for awhile and I'd like Chas. or someone of legal expertise to enlighten me. Thanks hounddog

hounddog wrote:I have a question, and I'm sure many others have considered this. Any of us that ever served in our military service had to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Anyone who holds any type of office in our country has to take that same oath. I'm not the smartest guy around any where, but it seems like some people could be really nailed, legally on this one. Maybe even Supreme Court Justices? I don't know who would be able to bring this to the forefront, but it really strikes a chord with me. I've had this on my mind for awhile and I'd like Chas. or someone of legal expertise to enlighten me. Thanks hounddog

As a veteran, I feel your pain, but even if someone was to show how what these people do is ILLEGAL, it takes someone to bring charges and prosecute them for it...just who is going to do that, Eric "Injustice Department" Holder? That is one of the reasons things are so jacked up...there is NO ONE to bring these people to justice for the terrible things they have done. They WILL get away with what you and I never would or could...and they will LAUGH at us as they do it. That is what being an arrogant elitist is all about, not simply about money but about POWER...and I'm certain its how the kings and queens of old must have felt, too.

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.

Ginsberg was 100% correct. Our Constitution needs a major overhaul. The founders didn't do a good enough job limiting the powers of the Federal government.

The commerce clause alone is enough to warrant a rewrite.

Don't be afraid to look at your own skeletons. It will make you (us) stronger.

I'm not a Ginsberg fan, but not because of this.

RoyGBiv wrote:Ginsberg was 100% correct. Our Constitution needs a major overhaul. The founders didn't do a good enough job limiting the powers of the Federal government.

The commerce clause alone is enough to warrant a rewrite.

Don't be afraid to look at your own skeletons. It will make you (us) stronger.

I'm not a Ginsberg fan, but not because of this.

The commerce clause merely needs an addendum clarifying that it only applies to direct, first-hand, definitive interstate commerce. That'd take a pretty huge chunk out of the federal government all by itself. Starting there and seeing where it led us would probably be a much easier pill to swollow than a "major overhaul".

I am not a constitutional lawyer but it seems to me that the problem isn't so much in the way the comerce clause was written, but in way the traitorous Supreme court justices interpeted it. No one with a wit of common sense could seriously believe that it allows the Feds to restrict Growing grain for home use, Allows for forcing folks to purchase health insurance, or outlawing cannabis that stays within state borders. The wild interpretation that is unrelated to reality is the problem, not the wording. Even today we review SCOTUS nominees on their Leftness or Rightness, not on their belief on taking the Constitution at it's litteral word.

Oldgringo wrote: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.

Naw, I think the problem rests with Congress.

The Founding Fathers defined a mechanism to get rid of bad judges, namely impeachment. Congress just doesn't have the will or the inclination to use it.

If Congress would regularly pull judges like bad teeth, the remaining ones would start to remember that their decisions have consequences.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: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.

Naw, I think the problem rests with Congress.

The Founding Fathers defined a mechanism to get rid of bad judges, namely impeachment. Congress just doesn't have the will or the inclination to use it.

If Congress would regularly pull judges like bad teeth, the remaining ones would start to remember that their decisions have consequences.

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 heard Ginsberg's comments on the Sean Hannity show yesterday during his interview with Mitt Romney. I just shook my head and went with the palm to the face. Mitt disagreed with Ginsberg so I know I agree with Mittens on that one.

Yes, they did take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and attempts have been made, in the past, to arrest them for not doing so, but the people making those attempts are usually written off as extremist nutcases.

There are a variety of issues that warrant clarification, including the 2nd, and the "commerce clause" but that takes a super legislative effort, as the people supporting the "Women's Rights" amendment have found out, and using SCOTUS to redefine it, unfortunately, has become the avenue of least resistance.

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.

"Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.' The New York Times' coverage of this study finds 'lots of possible reasons' for the decline. 'The U.S. Constitution,' it says, 'is terse and old' and 'guarantees relatively few rights.' " David Law of Washington University

I don't know why we'd expect other countries to use our constitution. We aren't using it.

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.