Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Are We On the Path to Civil War?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 14067" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>Are We On the Path to Civil War?</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've gone back to the original post of Dancho in order to try to focus on the issue he raised, which has to do with pending legislation to strip the judiciary of its independence (which is a primary Constitutional rule) and to attempt to impose a procedure for establishing an official religion.</p><p></p><p>It's useful to think of these attacks on the Constitution in light of a favorite buzzphrase of the neocons: "activist judges." (Another buzzphrase is "protection of marriage," marriage an institution apparently now, after a couple of million years of usefulness and sturdiness, needing the federal government to survive).</p><p></p><p>We first heard about evil activist judges from the racists who were offended by desegregation. In Brown v. Bd. of Education, the schools in question were ordered integrated immediately-- an <em>executive </em>action. The Supreme Court was being <em>activist </em>and taking upon itself powers not strictly permitted to it.</p><p></p><p>So, consider the source when you hear the phrase. Now, the enemies of liberty have a strong urge to curtail the power of judges, because the balance of powers requires the judiciary to monitor the Constitutionality of the actions of the executive and legislative branches. Separation of Powers is the precise thing, however, that the original charge of "activism" was founded upon. The neocons want Separation when it <em>protects </em>the power of the <em>president</em>, and want to <em>violate </em>it to <em>restrict </em>the power of the <em>Court</em>.</p><p></p><p>What's fun is to watch a "major presidential address" and count the minutes until he says "activist judges" or "protection of marriage." At the last State of the Union, I waited not long, and, lo and behold, he found a way to use <em>both </em>phrases <em>in one sentence</em>, not 2 or 3 words apart!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 14067, member: 42"] [b]Are We On the Path to Civil War?[/b] I've gone back to the original post of Dancho in order to try to focus on the issue he raised, which has to do with pending legislation to strip the judiciary of its independence (which is a primary Constitutional rule) and to attempt to impose a procedure for establishing an official religion. It's useful to think of these attacks on the Constitution in light of a favorite buzzphrase of the neocons: "activist judges." (Another buzzphrase is "protection of marriage," marriage an institution apparently now, after a couple of million years of usefulness and sturdiness, needing the federal government to survive). We first heard about evil activist judges from the racists who were offended by desegregation. In Brown v. Bd. of Education, the schools in question were ordered integrated immediately-- an [i]executive [/i]action. The Supreme Court was being [i]activist [/i]and taking upon itself powers not strictly permitted to it. So, consider the source when you hear the phrase. Now, the enemies of liberty have a strong urge to curtail the power of judges, because the balance of powers requires the judiciary to monitor the Constitutionality of the actions of the executive and legislative branches. Separation of Powers is the precise thing, however, that the original charge of "activism" was founded upon. The neocons want Separation when it [i]protects [/i]the power of the [i]president[/i], and want to [i]violate [/i]it to [i]restrict [/i]the power of the [i]Court[/i]. What's fun is to watch a "major presidential address" and count the minutes until he says "activist judges" or "protection of marriage." At the last State of the Union, I waited not long, and, lo and behold, he found a way to use [i]both [/i]phrases [i]in one sentence[/i], not 2 or 3 words apart! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Are We On the Path to Civil War?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top