Supreme Court usurps its authority again, part 4
Remember the Vision Forum “Giveaway” See the post of June 14, 2008 for complete details: “Vision Forum ‘Giveaway’”
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
.gif)
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
(I had server problems again last night and could not get this posted. Hopefully tonight will be different.)
I had planned on only one post in relation to the Supreme Court decision and FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. However, that has changed. In the Peoria Journal Star’s typical practice of providing balanced journalism, the paper printed four articles in relation to the decision. Three of the articles—an editorial by a national journalist, a political “cartoon” editorial, and an editorial by the on staff editorial writers—supported the Supreme Court decision. One editorial was opposed to the decision. However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Tonight’s post is the national editorial that supported the Supreme Court decision. It was published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 17, 2008 on page A4 and written by George Will who I classify as a pseudo conservative. A significant portion of the article questions Senator John McCain’s opposition to the decision which is why I believe it was selected for publication in the Peoria Journal Star. I am quoting the entire writing.
“Questions for McCain on ruling
by George Will
The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” Well. (GOOD for John McCain! He is RIGHT!—my addition)
Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) [Not quite; but close—my addition.], which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document (which is EXACTLY WHAT the present decision DOES!—my addition), to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect?
Does it rank with Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps? (The answer is YES! It does bother me though that he does not mention the most obscene Supreme Court case of all time—Roe v. Wade which allowed the MURDER of unborn babies by their mothers. What he is demonstrating is that the Supreme Court has been usurping power for a long time and needs to be brought under control and the Courtocracy must be stopped!—my addition)
Did McCain’s extravagant condemnation (Who said it was an extravagant condemnation except for George Will and the likes?—my addition) of the court’s habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? (Why is that necessary? The result of the ruling is known—unless the news accounts are inaccurate—and the result of the ruling is pure usurpation of power by an out of control Supreme Court some of whose members routinely ignore the provisions of the Constitution and replace the provisions of the Constitution with their own personal positions, desires, and prejudices—my addition.) More likely, some clever ignoramus (Typical name calling by those who have no basis for their position on an issue—my addition.) convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court—meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees—a campaign issue. (I should hope so!!! It is a very relevant campaign issue and the Democratic nominee has consistently supported judicial activism which is out of control and has been for years—my addition.)
The decision however, was 5-4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but these are not five fools or knaves. (No one said they were. Five fools and knaves would NOT be so DANGEROUS. It is the possession of so much uncontrolled, unregulated power that makes these five Justices so DANGEROUS to our Democracy. They seem to believe that they know best even when it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution which they have taken an oath to uphold—not SUBVERT!!!—my addition) The question of the detainees’—and the government’s—rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ. (WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! The question has nothing to do with what their rights are or should be. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDE FOR SAID RIGHTS for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!!!!! Quite simply, George Will is making an argument, although unsound, for judicial activism and that the five members of the Court know best —my addition.)
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. (The use of a writ of habeas corpus for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS has never been used in the United States and the CONSTITUTION does not provide for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS to have relief through a writ of habeas corpus. THE CONSTITUTION DOES PROVIDE that Congress is the body to provide the RULES for CAPTURES in time of war and past historical practice left it to the President, as Commander in Chief, when such rules are not provided by the Congress. NEVER was this POWER given to the COURTS!!! NEVER!!!—my addition) Of Guantanamo’s approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous ‘enemy combatants.’ Some probably are not. (NOTE: the probably. He does NOT know and neither do the Courts and the Constitution does NOT provide that the Courts are the body to make that decision. It is OUT OF THE COURT REALM OF RESPONSIBILITY!!!—my addition) None will be released by the court’s decision (irrelevant—my addition), which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. (also, irrelevant—my addition) Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. (AND THAT IS VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE IT IS A “RIGHT” NOT provided in the CONSTITUTION and now CREATED by this usurping decision of the FIVE members of the COURT!!!—my addition) Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests. (AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!! IT IS THE COURT SEIZING MORE AND MORE POWER THAT IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Does George Will NOT get it?—my addition)
As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling only begins marking a boundary against government’s otherwise boundless power to detain people (a very specific type of people—FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama’s characterization) ‘a legal black hole.’ (That is to be determined by Congress—NOT the Courts—my addition.) And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are. (That’s speculation but worse it is also irrelevant. Perceived benefits from usurpation of power is STILL based upon the USURPATION of POWER!!!—my addition)
Critics, including Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent, are correct that the court’s decision clouds more things than it clarifies. Is the ‘complete and total’ U.S. control of Guantanamo a solid-enough criterion to prevent the habeas rights from being extended to other U.S. facilities around the world where enemy combatants are or might be held? (Logically, it would not be but the five libertines aren’t always logical in their pronouncements. That’s part of the problem—the COURTS DO NOT USE the Constitution to reach their decisions. When that happens which is all too frequent, they are left to their own opinion of constitutional and unconstitutional!—my addition) Are habeas corpus rights the only constitutional protections that prevail at Guantanamo? (Again, logically the Court will extend to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS ALL constitutional rights. The Court has unconstitutionally opened “Pandora’s Box”!!!—my addition) If there are others, how many? All of them? If so, can there be trails by military commissions, which permit hearsay evidence and evidence produced by coercion?
Roberts’ impatience is understandable. ‘The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people’s representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date.’ (And there is the key!!! Congress HAS ESTABLISHED rules for CAPTURES just as the Constitution of the United States gives them authority to do. For the Supreme Court to deny those rules is to USURP the provisions of the Constitution as the Court does time after time, after time, after time. IT IS TIME TO STOP THE COURTOCRACY!!!—my addition)
Ideally, the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by the courts. (WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The courts have NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO GRADE CONGRESS WHEN DEALING WITH FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! NONE!!!!!!!—my addition)
McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, ‘quote, First Amendment rights’’ (Which unfortunately the same Supreme Court has ruled is mostly constitutional. But, in fact, this is irrelevant to what the court is now doing. It’s similar to claiming that because McCain did something wrong, the Supreme Court is now allowed to DO a SIMILAR WRONG! That is just NONSENSE!!!—my addition) Now he dismissively speaks of ‘so-called, quote, ‘habeas corpus suits.’’ He who wants to reassure constitutional conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as ‘the great writ of liberty.’ (This is ALSO IRRELEVANT because the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! WE are suppose to take the Constitution as it is NOT as we think it is suppose to be!—my addition)
As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of constitutional law, ‘is a separation of powers principle involving the judiciary and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.’ [Note: the article did not have ending quotation marks. I placed the ending quotation marks after “judgment” although I don’t know if that is correct.—my addition] (The argument that the writ of habeas corpus is a separation of power principle between the judicial and executive branches is debatable. What is NOT debatable is that it is IRRELEVANT to the issue at hand. The Constitution gives CONGRESS the power to make RULES concerning CAPTURES. It does NOT give that POWER to the COURTS!!!—my addition)
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched judicial supervision of America’s democratic government (Marbury v. Madison was the first instance of the Supreme Court USURPING its Constitutional power!!! A discussion of Marbury v. Madison would take a college semester course and will not occur at this time. What is important is that it is unacceptable to use one instance of USURPATION of power to JUSTIFY a current USURPATION of Constitutional power!!!—my addition), Chief Justice John Marshall asked: ‘To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?’ (MY very relevant question: Just WHO is RESTRAINING the Supreme Court of the United States? As I’ve said, the Supreme Court IS NOT the Constitution!!!—my addition) Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.” (The Supreme Court members took the same oath and are continually violating that oath. Again I ask. WHO is RESTRAINING the Supreme Court of the United States???—my addition)
This ruling is simply an illegal edict by a Supreme Court that enjoys rewriting the Constitution of the United States. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Article I, Section 8 declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Historically, when Congress has not made such rules during time of war, who do you think made such rules? The Supreme Court??? NO!!! NEVER!!! It has been the President under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces—Article II, Section 2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?” NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTUTITION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If that power is so listed, please tell me where it is because I have some knowledge of the Constitution and I have NEVER read it in the CONSTITUTION! NEVER!!! I haven’t read it because it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
Remember the Vision Forum “Giveaway” See the post of June 14, 2008 for complete details: “Vision Forum ‘Giveaway’”
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
(I had server problems again last night and could not get this posted. Hopefully tonight will be different.)
I had planned on only one post in relation to the Supreme Court decision and FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. However, that has changed. In the Peoria Journal Star’s typical practice of providing balanced journalism, the paper printed four articles in relation to the decision. Three of the articles—an editorial by a national journalist, a political “cartoon” editorial, and an editorial by the on staff editorial writers—supported the Supreme Court decision. One editorial was opposed to the decision. However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Tonight’s post is the national editorial that supported the Supreme Court decision. It was published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 17, 2008 on page A4 and written by George Will who I classify as a pseudo conservative. A significant portion of the article questions Senator John McCain’s opposition to the decision which is why I believe it was selected for publication in the Peoria Journal Star. I am quoting the entire writing.
“Questions for McCain on ruling
by George Will
The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” Well. (GOOD for John McCain! He is RIGHT!—my addition)
Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) [Not quite; but close—my addition.], which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document (which is EXACTLY WHAT the present decision DOES!—my addition), to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect?
Does it rank with Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps? (The answer is YES! It does bother me though that he does not mention the most obscene Supreme Court case of all time—Roe v. Wade which allowed the MURDER of unborn babies by their mothers. What he is demonstrating is that the Supreme Court has been usurping power for a long time and needs to be brought under control and the Courtocracy must be stopped!—my addition)
Did McCain’s extravagant condemnation (Who said it was an extravagant condemnation except for George Will and the likes?—my addition) of the court’s habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? (Why is that necessary? The result of the ruling is known—unless the news accounts are inaccurate—and the result of the ruling is pure usurpation of power by an out of control Supreme Court some of whose members routinely ignore the provisions of the Constitution and replace the provisions of the Constitution with their own personal positions, desires, and prejudices—my addition.) More likely, some clever ignoramus (Typical name calling by those who have no basis for their position on an issue—my addition.) convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court—meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees—a campaign issue. (I should hope so!!! It is a very relevant campaign issue and the Democratic nominee has consistently supported judicial activism which is out of control and has been for years—my addition.)
The decision however, was 5-4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but these are not five fools or knaves. (No one said they were. Five fools and knaves would NOT be so DANGEROUS. It is the possession of so much uncontrolled, unregulated power that makes these five Justices so DANGEROUS to our Democracy. They seem to believe that they know best even when it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution which they have taken an oath to uphold—not SUBVERT!!!—my addition) The question of the detainees’—and the government’s—rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ. (WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! The question has nothing to do with what their rights are or should be. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDE FOR SAID RIGHTS for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!!!!! Quite simply, George Will is making an argument, although unsound, for judicial activism and that the five members of the Court know best —my addition.)
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. (The use of a writ of habeas corpus for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS has never been used in the United States and the CONSTITUTION does not provide for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS to have relief through a writ of habeas corpus. THE CONSTITUTION DOES PROVIDE that Congress is the body to provide the RULES for CAPTURES in time of war and past historical practice left it to the President, as Commander in Chief, when such rules are not provided by the Congress. NEVER was this POWER given to the COURTS!!! NEVER!!!—my addition) Of Guantanamo’s approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous ‘enemy combatants.’ Some probably are not. (NOTE: the probably. He does NOT know and neither do the Courts and the Constitution does NOT provide that the Courts are the body to make that decision. It is OUT OF THE COURT REALM OF RESPONSIBILITY!!!—my addition) None will be released by the court’s decision (irrelevant—my addition), which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. (also, irrelevant—my addition) Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. (AND THAT IS VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE IT IS A “RIGHT” NOT provided in the CONSTITUTION and now CREATED by this usurping decision of the FIVE members of the COURT!!!—my addition) Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests. (AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!! IT IS THE COURT SEIZING MORE AND MORE POWER THAT IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Does George Will NOT get it?—my addition)
As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling only begins marking a boundary against government’s otherwise boundless power to detain people (a very specific type of people—FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama’s characterization) ‘a legal black hole.’ (That is to be determined by Congress—NOT the Courts—my addition.) And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are. (That’s speculation but worse it is also irrelevant. Perceived benefits from usurpation of power is STILL based upon the USURPATION of POWER!!!—my addition)
Critics, including Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent, are correct that the court’s decision clouds more things than it clarifies. Is the ‘complete and total’ U.S. control of Guantanamo a solid-enough criterion to prevent the habeas rights from being extended to other U.S. facilities around the world where enemy combatants are or might be held? (Logically, it would not be but the five libertines aren’t always logical in their pronouncements. That’s part of the problem—the COURTS DO NOT USE the Constitution to reach their decisions. When that happens which is all too frequent, they are left to their own opinion of constitutional and unconstitutional!—my addition) Are habeas corpus rights the only constitutional protections that prevail at Guantanamo? (Again, logically the Court will extend to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS ALL constitutional rights. The Court has unconstitutionally opened “Pandora’s Box”!!!—my addition) If there are others, how many? All of them? If so, can there be trails by military commissions, which permit hearsay evidence and evidence produced by coercion?
Roberts’ impatience is understandable. ‘The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people’s representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date.’ (And there is the key!!! Congress HAS ESTABLISHED rules for CAPTURES just as the Constitution of the United States gives them authority to do. For the Supreme Court to deny those rules is to USURP the provisions of the Constitution as the Court does time after time, after time, after time. IT IS TIME TO STOP THE COURTOCRACY!!!—my addition)
Ideally, the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by the courts. (WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The courts have NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO GRADE CONGRESS WHEN DEALING WITH FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! NONE!!!!!!!—my addition)
McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, ‘quote, First Amendment rights’’ (Which unfortunately the same Supreme Court has ruled is mostly constitutional. But, in fact, this is irrelevant to what the court is now doing. It’s similar to claiming that because McCain did something wrong, the Supreme Court is now allowed to DO a SIMILAR WRONG! That is just NONSENSE!!!—my addition) Now he dismissively speaks of ‘so-called, quote, ‘habeas corpus suits.’’ He who wants to reassure constitutional conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as ‘the great writ of liberty.’ (This is ALSO IRRELEVANT because the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! WE are suppose to take the Constitution as it is NOT as we think it is suppose to be!—my addition)
As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of constitutional law, ‘is a separation of powers principle involving the judiciary and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.’ [Note: the article did not have ending quotation marks. I placed the ending quotation marks after “judgment” although I don’t know if that is correct.—my addition] (The argument that the writ of habeas corpus is a separation of power principle between the judicial and executive branches is debatable. What is NOT debatable is that it is IRRELEVANT to the issue at hand. The Constitution gives CONGRESS the power to make RULES concerning CAPTURES. It does NOT give that POWER to the COURTS!!!—my addition)
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched judicial supervision of America’s democratic government (Marbury v. Madison was the first instance of the Supreme Court USURPING its Constitutional power!!! A discussion of Marbury v. Madison would take a college semester course and will not occur at this time. What is important is that it is unacceptable to use one instance of USURPATION of power to JUSTIFY a current USURPATION of Constitutional power!!!—my addition), Chief Justice John Marshall asked: ‘To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?’ (MY very relevant question: Just WHO is RESTRAINING the Supreme Court of the United States? As I’ve said, the Supreme Court IS NOT the Constitution!!!—my addition) Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.” (The Supreme Court members took the same oath and are continually violating that oath. Again I ask. WHO is RESTRAINING the Supreme Court of the United States???—my addition)
This ruling is simply an illegal edict by a Supreme Court that enjoys rewriting the Constitution of the United States. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Article I, Section 8 declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Historically, when Congress has not made such rules during time of war, who do you think made such rules? The Supreme Court??? NO!!! NEVER!!! It has been the President under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces—Article II, Section 2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?” NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTUTITION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If that power is so listed, please tell me where it is because I have some knowledge of the Constitution and I have NEVER read it in the CONSTITUTION! NEVER!!! I haven’t read it because it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:43 AM
0 comments
