| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Barr's investigation will be blocked by Federal Judiciary |
Resident Skeptic |
Though the Mueller investigation had a free hand, I expect a Federal judge to block the Barr investigation any day now, prohibiting him from declassifying any files.
Long ago the The Federal Judiciary granted to itself extra-constitutional plenary power to decide from day to day what any part of the Constitution means. What it meant yesterday is irrelevant. It might mean something else today. Until the States dissolve the Federal Judiciary through a Constitutional Amendment, there is no hope.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/26/19 8:32 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
Just curious, which one of these 3 would you like to get rid of:
U.S. District Court, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
5/27/19 9:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Patrick Harris wrote: | Just curious, which one of these 3 would you like to get rid of:
U.S. District Court, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court |
All of them, at least in their current form. The Federalists scoffed at the concerns of the anti-Federalist under the pretense that the Judicary would be the weakest of all three branches. Sadly, the anti-Federalists have been proven correct.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/27/19 10:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
What would this amendment say? "Article III of the Constitution to the United States is hereby repealed"?
An amendment limiting the injunctive power of a federal district court to the district that court serves would probably be a good idea, but eliminating the federal judiciary is coo coo banana town. That's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that's demolishing the house and collapsing it onto its inhabitants to get rid of the bathwater. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
5/27/19 10:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Also can't wait to see what the White House and Congress do once their power is completely unchecked. Can't imagine how anything could go wrong with that. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
5/27/19 10:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
Also can't wait until the first time there is any kind of disagreement between "two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects".
Whatever it is, I'm sure they can just work it out over a few beers. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
5/27/19 10:23 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | What would this amendment say? "Article III of the Constitution to the United States is hereby repealed"?
An amendment limiting the injunctive power of a federal district court to the district that court serves would probably be a good idea, but eliminating the federal judiciary is coo coo banana town. That's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that's demolishing the house and collapsing it onto its inhabitants to get rid of the bathwater. |
Coo-coo banana town is not seeing that the Federal Judiciary is the only "co-equal" branch that is unchecked. Certainly some mechanism would need to be implemented to resolve disputes between States. But my point remains. The Federal Judiciary is operating unchecked, the very thing you fear the other two branches would do if the Federal Judiciary was to be eliminated. And yes, Congress does have Constitutional power to change the jurisdiction of the courts, but they don't do it. Even worse, the States themselves retain incredible power to make changes, and simply do not.
But let's view this debate in light of my original post. It is obvious that the courts have become political agencies of the radical left. They will try to shut Barr down.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/27/19 12:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
It's not unchecked. The fact that you're proposing a Constitutional amendment to legally eliminate it proves it's not unchecked.
You then go on to enumerate how two different groups can check the judiciary, further proving that it's not unchecked.
That all being the case -- why not propose reasonable, sensible means through which Congress and the states can check the judiciary, rather than detonating a fifth of the US constitution and proposing leaving the country with no courts at all? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
5/27/19 12:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | It's not unchecked. The fact that you're proposing a Constitutional amendment to legally eliminate it proves it's not unchecked.
You then go on to enumerate how two different groups can check the judiciary, further proving that it's not unchecked.
That all being the case -- why not propose reasonable, sensible means through which Congress and the states can check the judiciary, rather than detonating a fifth of the US constitution and proposing leaving the country with no courts at all? |
I acknowledge that scrapping the current system would need to happen siultaneously with the implimentation of a new one.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/27/19 2:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | I acknowledge that scrapping the current system would need to happen siultaneously with the implimentation of a new one. |
Sure, but why cut your foot off if you have a wart on your toe, even if you plan to do it simultaneously with the acquisition of a prosthetic?
I agree with you 100% that there's a wart on the federal judiciary, I just think there are a couple of intermediate steps we could try first.  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
5/27/19 3:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| What would be the problem with him declassifying everything |
caseyleejones |
| in the report? I kind of think there will be some lefties in serious trouble...Comey one of them. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11798
5/28/19 7:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Dave Dorsey wrote: | It's not unchecked. The fact that you're proposing a Constitutional amendment to legally eliminate it proves it's not unchecked.
You then go on to enumerate how two different groups can check the judiciary, further proving that it's not unchecked.
That all being the case -- why not propose reasonable, sensible means through which Congress and the states can check the judiciary, rather than detonating a fifth of the US constitution and proposing leaving the country with no courts at all? |
I acknowledge that scrapping the current system would need to happen simultaneously with the implimentation of a new one. |
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/28/19 8:36 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
[quote="Dave Dorsey"] | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | I acknowledge that scrapping the current system would need to happen siultaneously with the implimentation of a new one. |
Sure, but why cut your foot off if you have a wart on your toe, even if you plan to do it simultaneously with the acquisition of a prosthetic?
I agree with you 100% that there's a wart on the federal judiciary, I just think there are a couple of intermediate steps we could try first. [/quote]
 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
5/28/19 9:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
