Are you sure it was in THIS thread.
We've got several, I'm getting a little confused myself over which one I'm posting in at times.
Fern
Originally posted by: AAjax
Originally posted by: AAjax
Is it just me or did a bunch of posts just disappear? My last one sure did. Hmmmm...
Hmm, the posts from Compuwiz1 calling Rp supporters Loonies has disappeared too.
To whoever deleted the posts,
Edit your own stuff, but unless Im breaking AT rules, please leave my posts alone.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: AAjax
Originally posted by: AAjax
Is it just me or did a bunch of posts just disappear? My last one sure did. Hmmmm...
Hmm, the posts from Compuwiz1 calling Rp supporters Loonies has disappeared too.
To whoever deleted the posts,
Edit your own stuff, but unless Im breaking AT rules, please leave my posts alone.
Are you sure it was in THIS thread.
We've got several, I'm getting a little confused myself over which one I'm posting in at times.
Fern
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Ah, I see what Fern meant. Good find. But I also see this, which what is first listed in his proposed act:
The Congress finds the following:
(1) -snip-
(2) -snip-
(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)). I haven't seen that case, hopefully I'll get time to check it out - oh crap it's from 1872, not sure I can get a copy.
(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.[
(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
As to the above references asserting Congressional control over judicial juridiction. Check out Madison v Marbury. IIRC, that case set precedence where SCOTUS used Constitutional argument/construction to pretty much blow that sh!t right outta the water. That case occured right about 1800. It hasn't be overturned, or even really challenged AFAIK.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but Congress does have the right to overturn and correct what they perceive as unjustified SC decisions affecting all 50 states, be it with a law or amendment to the Constitution. The best example being Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman in the early 90's, where Congress got pretty far before coming up short in passing an amendment on flag burning.
I'll agree with teh part about a passing a Constitutional amendment along with the states' ratification.
But where do you get that part about "Congress does have the right to overturn and correct what they perceive as unjustified SC decisions affecting all 50 states, be it with a law.."
You seem to be saying that Congress can pass a law to overturn SCOTUS decisions they don't agree with. I don't think so, so I'd like to see what you got.
Of course, Paul's extremism on state's rights is concerning, but the list you posted of his act includes religion, sexual orientation, and sexual reproduction as those that should no longer be left up to the SC. That's not all-encompassing. No, it's not all encompassing. But if you propose that Congress be allowed to set those limits now on SCOTUS, what's next? There's nothing to stop them further limiting SCOTUS once you establish that precident. Granted, I think the legal wording could be cleaned up to be less broad in that act. Frankly, I'd like to hear what Paul says about it WRT his position on what the SC should be able to rule on.
See bolded above please.
Otherwise, dumb question - what's "WRT" mean? (it's in your last sentance)
Fern
Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Banning Flag Desecration (1989): Outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag in protest against President Ronald Reagan's policies. He was arrested under Texas' flag desecration statute. In its 5-4 ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration laws in 48 states by ruling that flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.
Flag Protection Act (1989-1990): In 1989, the U.S. Congress protested the Johnson decision by passing the Flag Protection Act, a federal version of the already-struck state flag desecration statutes. Thousands burned flags in protest of the new law, and when two protesters were arrested, the Supreme Court affirmed its previous ruling and struck down the federal statute.
Flag Desecration Amendment (1990, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000, 2001, 2003, 2005-2006): Congress has made seven attempts to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court by passing a constitutional amendment making an exception to the First Amendment in order to allow the government to ban flag desecration. In 1990, when the amendment was first brought up, it failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. After the Republican congressional takeover of 1994, it has consistently passed the House but failed in the Senate.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Since I don't have a perfect memory I did a quick Google search on a good timeline that better outlines my previous SC references. Here you go:
Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Banning Flag Desecration (1989): Outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag in protest against President Ronald Reagan's policies. He was arrested under Texas' flag desecration statute. In its 5-4 ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration laws in 48 states by ruling that flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.
Flag Protection Act (1989-1990): In 1989, the U.S. Congress protested the Johnson decision by passing the Flag Protection Act, a federal version of the already-struck state flag desecration statutes. Thousands burned flags in protest of the new law, and when two protesters were arrested, the Supreme Court affirmed its previous ruling and struck down the federal statute.
Flag Desecration Amendment (1990, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000, 2001, 2003, 2005-2006): Congress has made seven attempts to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court by passing a constitutional amendment making an exception to the First Amendment in order to allow the government to ban flag desecration. In 1990, when the amendment was first brought up, it failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. After the Republican congressional takeover of 1994, it has consistently passed the House but failed in the Senate.
The bolded portion there is what I'm referring to. Unless I'm mistaken, and I guess I easily could be, Congress passed a federal law that essentially overrode the Johnson decision with the Flag Protection Act. In fact, this law should still be part of the U.S. code but just not at all enforced. My source for the above is about.com.
Also, from everything I've read Paul has said he wants to maintain SC precedents (i.e. federal laws) but again, I'd really like to hear what he says on this. I've only read a few of his congressional proposals, including HR300 linked by sirjonk.
And WRT means "with regards to".
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Say you don't like Dr. Paul all you like, it's your right to have that opinion, but accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more
integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Say you don't like Dr. Paul all you like, it's your right to have that opinion, but accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more
integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
No, thats called the truth.
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Say you don't like Dr. Paul all you like, it's your right to have that opinion, but accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more
integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
No, thats called the truth.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Say you don't like Dr. Paul all you like, it's your right to have that opinion, but accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more
integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
No, thats called the truth.
For someone who half quotes to discredit people, I'm sure you know a lot about "truth".:roll:
Originally posted by: morkinva
Ron Paul Wins Another Alabama Straw Poll By Landslide!
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Say you don't like Dr. Paul all you like, it's your right to have that opinion, but accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more
integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
No, thats called the truth.
For someone who half quotes to discredit people, I'm sure you know a lot about "truth".:roll:
Have you ever posted anything that wasn't a rolleyes and actually contained information? Or do you simply repeat talking points?
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: morkinva
Ron Paul Wins Another Alabama Straw Poll By Landslide!
Yeah... a "Straw Poll" with only 199 pollers? :laugh:
Looks like a Paul Convention to me.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: morkinva
Ron Paul Wins Another Alabama Straw Poll By Landslide!
Yeah... a "Straw Poll" with only 199 pollers? :laugh:
Looks like a Paul Convention to me.
So this is your excuse for the lazy supporters of :
Fred Thompson 31 (16%)
Rudy Giuliani 18 (9%)
Mitt Romney 16 (8%)
Mike Huckabee 8 (4%)
Duncan Hunter 5 (3%)
John McCain 3 (2%)
Cort 1 (1%)
Undecided 1 (1%)
Sam Brownback 1 (1%)
Tom Tancredo 0 (0%)
and Ron Paul had:
Ron Paul 115 (58%)
So first you say he doesn't have anough support. Then when he does have it you chalk it up to not being a straw poll at all. I predict a lot of jaw dropping in your future :laugh:
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So first you say he doesn't have anough support. Then when he does have it you chalk it up to not being a straw poll at all. I predict a lot of jaw dropping in your future :laugh:
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So first you say he doesn't have anough support. Then when he does have it you chalk it up to not being a straw poll at all. I predict a lot of jaw dropping in your future :laugh:
115 votes isn't exactly what I'd call "support".
These "straw polls" are nothing but Ron Paul supporter meetings. The same thing happens every time. Don't you ever wonder why the only record of these "straw polls" is a lame posting on some nutjob's blog?
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So first you say he doesn't have anough support. Then when he does have it you chalk it up to not being a straw poll at all. I predict a lot of jaw dropping in your future :laugh:
115 votes isn't exactly what I'd call "support".
These "straw polls" are nothing but Ron Paul supporter meetings. The same thing happens every time. Don't you ever wonder why the only record of these "straw polls" is a lame posting on some nutjob's blog?
Yep, these numbers mean nothing :roll:
Text
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So first you say he doesn't have anough support. Then when he does have it you chalk it up to not being a straw poll at all. I predict a lot of jaw dropping in your future :laugh:
115 votes isn't exactly what I'd call "support".
These "straw polls" are nothing but Ron Paul supporter meetings. The same thing happens every time. Don't you ever wonder why the only record of these "straw polls" is a lame posting on some nutjob's blog?
Yep, these numbers mean nothing :roll:
Text
To put this in perspective, there are 285 people on these forums right now. So getting 115 people together isn't all that impressive.