Courts have too much power

http://www.publicopiniononline.com

Courts have too much power


I am about to criticize judges and the judiciary. This is considered to be out of bounds by libs, unless they do it. (Ted Kennedy smearing Robert Bork; Harry Reid calling Clarence Thomas an embarrassment; and Paul Begala castigating President Bush's nominees as "right-wing rejects.")

The latest example of judicial tyranny comes from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled local and state government can take your property for private development, if the government can make more money on property taxes. Your property no longer belongs to you and you can't do anything about it. Even though the Constitution clearly states property can be taken for public development, local government can kick you out of your home and sell the land to a developer. This defies all logic.

On May 12, a Clinton-appointed federal judge struck down the Nebraska ban on same-sex marriage. The Constitutional amendment passed in 2000 with 70% of the vote, yet a single judge tossed it out. I guess the people, in this judge's mind, were too stupid to know what they were doing.

I'm sure the people of California have felt this way for a long time. On Election Day 1994, Prop 187 passed with 59% limiting welfare payments to illegal aliens. The very next month Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued an injunction, ordering taxpayers to support illegal aliens and they have ever since. So much for the overburdened taxpayers getting a tax cut; they have to support people who are here illegally.

Liberal judges love illegals. In New York, state Supreme Court judge Karen Smith ordered the New York DMV cannot, and shall not, deny licenses to immigrants who cannot prove they are here legally. Next, some judge will rule illegals have a right to vote in our elections. That would be one way the libs can increase their base.

There are so many insane judicial rulings that come down every day. Americans are fed up. People just shake their heads when they hear the Supreme Court ruling that murderous juveniles receiving the death penalty is unconstitutional. ...

Justice Kennedy found that death would be too cruel a punishment for these worthless pieces of human debris. In this decision, the Supremes not only rewrote the 8th Amendment, it overruled itself in its acceptance of the juvenile death penalty just 16 years before.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she has every intention of relying on foreign law. ("We are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems.") Excuse me, you are to rule on the U.S. Constitution and our laws, not theirs! Talk about liberal lunacy on the bench!

Of course, the U.S. Supremes also ruled that terrorists caught on the battlefield now have a right to the federal courts. Have these liberal judges ever heard of the separation of powers or have they ruled that is now unconstitutional? These ruling were 5-4 with the libs on the majority and the clear thinking Constitutional judges (led by Thomas and Scalia) in the minority.

It boils down to the fact the left doesn't trust the ballot box. That is why they want these judges ruling the way they do. They don't trust the American voter to do the right thing. ... They do not believe in representative government. They say they do when they win elections, but they don't. They are using the judges to get their ideas transformed into law via the bench. They rely on the courts and the ever- growing federal bureaucracy to achieve their ends.

Libs always scream, "Count every vote!" Of course, they want those votes counted as long as they win. If not, they must rely on a liberal judge to toss out those votes.

Their chest-thumping about protecting "minority rights" is just another attempt to transform their electoral losses into political wins. They believe in their bones winning elections is their birthright.

And if they don't win, the election was stolen and the people were too stupid to understand the issues. ...

The judiciary's long, insidious advance is finally being challenged. Ending the libs' judicial filibuster in the Senate is one way. Another is the re-discovery of Article III of the Constitution, specifying that Congress will set jurisdiction and budgets of the courts.

Tom Delay, though under fire in the liberal media for saying this, keeps saying this anyway, that federal courts have run amok in large part due to the Congress's failure to confront them.

A showdown is coming. Congress must reassert Constitutional authority over the courts.

Terence Weddle

Fayetteville


Originally published July 22, 2005

Quote:

---

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she has every intention of relying on foreign law. ("We are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems.") Excuse me, you are to rule on the U.S. Constitution and our laws, not theirs! Talk about liberal lunacy on the bench!

---

"rely on foreign law" "we are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems"

SAY WHAT?

Would that be that World Court Law, eh Ruthie Girl?

Oh Lordie......

8O 8O 8O 8O

Does the Judicial branch have have power over all the braches?

Are these rules set in stone?

Even the registerd democrats do not like this.

Well at least we have one activist Judge down.

Handgrip--Sandra Day O'Connor was one of the four judges that voted for the property owners in Connecticut and against the government who wanted to take their land to then give it to a wealthy developer. I don't know her history on other decisions, but I was glad to see her vote for the citizens on this case that was decided shortly before she announced her retirement.

Also, and perhaps Mamie can shed more light on this, but to answer your question about the Judiciary having control over both the other branches. Effectively the Judiciary has control over everything to the extent of complaints and disputes. That is their only role...to settle complaints and disputes and disagreements for the entire land. They are the final decision-maker. The reason a Supreme Court decision is no monumental is because the Court rarely addresses again what has already been decided. With respect to what is happening with illegal immigration, the power of the court has been greatly deflated because once an international agreement is entered into, the resolution of any disputes concerning it whether it be between governments or corporations....another court now has jurisdiction and that will be the World Trade Organization and the World Court bypassing altogether our system, our will, our ways, our goals and our protections as American Citizens.

In otherwords, we will soon no longer be relevant with regards to the most crucial matters that affect us such as trade, business, employment, jobs, worker protections, security, citizenship and so forth.

We are being contracted out of existence by agreements with other nations. It will happen by one of three ways:

1. Signatures by our legal representatives such as a US Trade Representative, US Secretary of Commerce, US Secretary of State, or the President on agreements with Canada and Mexico to open the borders to the US to facilitate the creation of the North American Community. This agreement is called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" Pact. It is being achieved through the establishment of "regulations" established without any notice to the American Public, without any hearings, without any debate....without any information being provided to the American People....without any media coverage or investigation in the United States.

2. Ratification of CAFTA

3. Ratification of the FTAA, Free Trade Agreement of the Americas

The American People upon finalization of either of these three initiatives by this President will be displaced economically by foreign immigration, low income as well as high income immigrants. Our wages and salaries will be deflated by the low income immigrants and our ability to own property, already limited, will not keep pace with the cost to own property due to the demand which will by simple economics force us into poverty or out of the country.

The former United States will be a two class sytem with the top class consisting of International High Rollers, or what I call the Crones or Globalists and the lower class consisting of the foreign immigrants pouring in from every nation in the world. Citizenship may still exist, it just won't mean anything.

All legal but for the little issue I keep raising of Treason.

Will a Supreme Court as soon to be devised agree to review a complaint of Treason against the President, the Vice President, the US Senate, and potentially the House of Representatives?

Yes, they will probably review them all. Will they uphold the lower court ruling that the Treason Trials were valid when the President, the Vice President, the US Senate, and potentially the House of Representatives appeal their convictions?

The reason this is so important is that the only way I see that we can void the contracts and agreements with the other nations is if we can prove they were executed improperly; without legal authority; as acts of Treason to dissolve the United States.

A Court that voted 5 - 4 on the Connecticut Case will view the Security and Prosperity Pact; the CAFTA; and the FTAA similarly to the powers of the City of New Haven...the same logic will apply.

The next Judge will not matter. He either replaces one of the 4 that were with the American People or adds to the 5 for a 6-3 vote in favor of the government.

The next Judge will not matter either. He/she will either replace one of the 4 that were with the American People, because William Rehnquist voted for the American People as did Sandra Day O'Conner against the government on the Connecticut Case, or adds to the now 6 for a 7-2 vote in favor of the government.

I believe the US Supreme Court no matter who the next two judges are will affirm the actions of the government to dissolve the United States in the name of immigration seeking a better life based upon evidence the government will supply, in the name of ending world poverty based upon evidence the government will supply, in the name of the greater good of the global community based upon evidence the government will supply, in the name of security and defeating terrorism based upon evidence the government will supply, based upon human rights based upon evidence the government will supply....in the name of Globalization.

At which point, what are the options?

What were the options in 1861?

What is different today?

Quote:

---

At which point, what are the options?

What were the options in 1861?

What is different today?

---

in 1861 the fight was for "states rights" --- EXACTLY the same thing is happening today. As I said in another post, the Senate of the United States is "unconstitutional" and in my opinion legally void, because the Senate does not have the "power of attorney" to enter into any contract for ANY STATE -- not CAFTA and not NAFTA because these are contracts that are binding on the states.


The Senate, since 1913, is elected by "the people" -- the people's house under the Constitution is the House of Representatives and the States House was the Senate. Ever wonder why Senators were called Statesmen and not politicians?


For example, the Arizona State Legislature has passed bills against illegal aliens that were vetoed by the Governor -- Arizona needs to veto the Governor in the next election.

Senator John McCain -- the Senator FROM Arizona, is not a Senator FOR Arizona because he has sponsored legislation to grant amnesty to "illegals." Can anybody really say Arizona Senator John McCain has authority to speak for Arizona when his actions are in direct contradiction to the will of the people and the state?


As I stated earlier, I have drafted an amendment repealing the 17th amendment to restore the Senate FOR THE United States. I have sent this bill to most of the legislatures of the states. Until the States have a vote in the federal government as originally intended, the States and the citizens thereof will suffer.

Mamie, so unless we repreal the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution to restore the rights of the states through the US Senate, which would require I assume a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 2/3 of the states, our gooses are cooked, legally?

:?:

Amendment XVII
(1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote


Article XVII to the Constitution for the united States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-second Congress on the 13th of May, 1912, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 31st of May, 1913, to have been "ratified" by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States.

Article XVII is expressly prohibited to the federal government under Article V, Clause 3 whereby "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."


Article V, Clause 3 requires a unanimous vote of the States for any change of suffrage in the Senate so, 12 of the 48 states did not give their consent to being deprived of their "equal Suffrage in the Senate" - - Article V requires ALL states -- 100%, not 3/4 votes to be ratified

Article I Section 4 guarantees to the sovereign States that "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

When you read the 17th Amendment, what it says and what it does are two different things

All Senators and Representatives are elected at the same time by every state -- and whether the Senators were "elected" by the State the time was the same

IMHO, the States have the right to elect their Senators any way they choose ... by popular vote of the people, by the state nominating the Senators for the vote of the people or whatever.


That "the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators" does not give Congress the right to deprive the states of their "equal suffrage"

duplicate post

http://www.newsday.com/business/realest ... -headlines

Rising up to nullify court ruling
Kenneth Harney

July 22, 2005

To call it a backlash would hardly do it justice.

Calling it an unprecedented uprising to nullify a decision of the highest court of the land would be more accurate.

In the four weeks since the Supreme Court sanctioned the seizure of private homes by municipal governments for private "economic development," a firestorm of reaction has broken out in dozens of state legislatures and in Congress.

At the federal level, the House adopted by a 365-33 vote a highly unusual resolution deploring the court's ruling. The House also voted 231-189 for a bill that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds "to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London." The court ruled that municipalities have the right to determine what constitutes a "public purpose" for eminent domain seizure purposes - even if that means taking privately owned real estate away from one set of citizens and handing it over to private developers who promise to increase the local tax revenue base or increase employment.

In effect, the House told the court: You may have narrowly approved the Connecticut city's eminent domain seizures of homes for a privately developed and owned urban renewal project, but we have a weapon in this fight, too. If the appropriations amendment passes the Senate, the city of New London will not be able to use key federal funds in any way, directly or indirectly, to move that project forward. No transportation money, no housing subsidies, no assistance from the U.S. Treasury.

Meanwhile, bipartisan support is building in the Senate for the broader-sweeping Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005, authored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). That bill declares "the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses and other private property should be reserved only for true public purposes." Under no circumstances, according to Cornyn, should local eminent domain powers "be used simply to further private economic development." If passed and signed into law, the bill would prohibit all uses of federal funds in connection with any eminent domain seizures for economic development purposes.

At the state level, legislative moves are under way in more than two dozen states to rein in - or at least clarify - the powers of municipalities to condemn and seize homes. Eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already impose restrictions in some form.

In Connecticut, Gov. M. Jodi Rell has endorsed a moratorium on eminent domain seizures, and called the issue "the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party: the government taking away the rights and liberties of property owners without giving them a voice. But this time it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting - it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."

The outraged reaction to the Kelo decision has erupted across the entire political and ideological spectrum, creating momentary bedfellows out of legislators who rarely agree on anything. Name another issue where House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the House's lone self-described socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), evangelical Christian groups, Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader all are on the same side.

Waters denounced the decision - which she said would weigh most heavily on minority and poor neighborhoods - as "the most un-American thing that can be done." DeLay called the ruling "a travesty." A few of the opponents of the Kelo decision are looking to mount direct action - sometimes tongue in cheek. A California-based group called Freestar Media Llc is organizing an effort to persuade the town council of Weare, N.H., where Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter owns property, to condemn the land in order to give it to developers who promise to construct a hotel on the site, substantially raising town revenues and employment in the process.

Souter voted with the majority in the case. The name of the proposed project: The Lost Liberty Hotel, which will also feature a restaurant called the Just Desserts Cafe.

Logan Darrow Clements, chief executive of Freestar, insists "this is not a prank. The Town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, we can begin our hotel development."

Just desserts indeed.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.



http://www.enidnews.com/story.asp?story_id=87680
Court expands eminent domain, but some states aren’t buying it
7/23/2005

The recent Supreme Court decision that could allow governments to take private property and turn it over to developers has state lawmakers across the country scrambling to thwart an overreaching power.
Oklahoma is one of those states working on such legislation. Lawmakers are alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes or businesses for developers that might make a better offer on sales tax revenues for the community.

Many see the action by the Supreme Court in the Kelo vs. New London case as an attack on private property rights of individuals â€â€