Hey Mark!
Yep. Exactly.
I am reminded of this buffoon here in Tampa back about fifteen years or so ago. Imilo Ippolito. Slum Lord....In general, a real scum bag. Imilio decided to open up what he termed, a "Constitutional Court". He was your typical "Patriot/Militiaman/Tax-Protestor/Ron Paul Supporter/Crackpot". At any rate, Imilio decided that he was the only one who could properly interpret the Constitution, and therefore, he was "The People"; and thus, "Judge Imilio's": "Constitutional Court". Judge Imilio started doing divorces, granting them, (by the way, I think Judge Imilio's Constitutional Court was held in his living room or his front porch, depending on the weather); and then Judge Imilio started performing weddings. Pretty quick cash as I understand it.
Imilio ran into some trouble with the State of Florida's "un-Constitutional Courts; Judge Imilio's brethren Judges, who were not at all amused with Judge Imilio's "Constitutional Court". Then, Judge Imilio decided that he had enough, and started threatening those Judges who were members of State of Florida's unConstitutional Courts, as well as a couple of un-Constitutional Federal Court Judges who were here in Tampa.
After a jury trial, in the un-Constitutional United States District Court For the Middle District of Florida, Judge Imilio got to prop up and cool his heels at Federal Prison Camp Eglin for ten years........
The point being, is who made "Judge Imilio" the one sole person who could define, describe, or determine what was, or was not "Constitutional"? Obviously, our system of government gives the Supreme Court of the United States that inherent power, not Michael, not Judge Imilio. not me, not Mark Kahle. Once again:
"It Is.....What It Is"......
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, Michael, YOU miss the point the rulings I referred to are well over 100 years old and have never been questioned... quite the opposite they have actually been upheld by the populaces they effect.... by popular vote.....several times.On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
Apparently YOU missed the reality to which I identified.The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them Constitutional.
"Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate."
The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them legal.
The Government's costumed enforcers may enforce those interpretations/inventions/decrees, but that does not make them Constitutional.
Regard$,
--MJ
I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran
At 02:01 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:
Michael,
One of my points, and you obviously missed it.
Whether you like it, or you don't like it, the Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and becomes edict. It becomes law. The law of our Land. We are a Nation of Laws. You can disagree, you can dispute the law, and you can even petition your Congressman or Senator to mandate whatever stricture it is that you disagree with, to be legislated, but it is THE LAW, and the interpretation of the Constitution, BY LAW.
Just because you disagree with the law, (or I disagree with the law) doesn't make it any less unenforceable, or more importantly, less lawful. "It Is, What It Is".
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate.
- The US Government is acting CONTRARY to the Constitution in regards to Guantanamo. The United States Government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
- AIS9C2
- The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
There, of course, is NO 'Rebellion' NOR is/has there been an 'Invasion'.
As such 'suspending' (or ignoring) Habeas Corpus in this instance is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Amendments V and VI are applicable.
Regard$,
--MJ
On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive. -- Thomas Jefferson Bergh 11:213. (1807.)
At 10:39 AM 11/12/2011, you wrote:
Good Morning Michael!
A couple of thoughts first, before I get to the crux of what I wanted to convey.
First, it is very hard to express emotion over a medium such as e-mails, message boards, or Groups like Political Forum. I am guilty of writing things here, sometimes in an attempt to be humorous, and come back later to see that my post sounded arrogant, or nonsensical instead of conveying the humor (or the "enlightenment"!!) that I intended. (Once again, another probably failed attempt at humor!)
Second, I think that it is probably an apt description, that those of us who are regular, active participants here in Political Forum, have one or two things in common: (1) We are all probably pretty passionate in our beliefs; and we want to share those beliefs with others, somehow thinking that maybe we can convince others of our beliefs; (2) We are all pretty much open minded, and are all still looking for answers. It might take a two by four hitting us over the head to change our perspective(s), but in general, we are looking to be either (A) affirmed in our beliefs, or (B) proven incorrect.
Finally, I share with you a fairly recent Supremes Decision, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008); that dealt with Guantanamo detainees and the Bush Administration's suspension of the right to Habeas Corpus; especially to those prisoners who were not American citizens. A long read but very informative and explanatory on a number of fronts, especially as to how our Constitution has been interpreted over the years as it applies to jurisdiction and applicability to citizens and non-citizens alike.
Going back to the initial statement by Sheldon Richmond, that, "the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens"; personally, I think that Richmon's comment is taken out of context and mis-states what the Supreme Court has said over the course of one hundred fifty years. Having said that, the Constitution is jurisdictional, and it does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike in certain aspects and circumstances.
KeithInTampa
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:
- Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity" refer to?
Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?
I agree with you, that the term, "The People" sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference "[t]he People" (or are non-specific) apply to say, folks in China, or Iran?
AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.
OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally? Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?
Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.
In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.
Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?
Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?
If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.
I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions, are victims of our "interventionist" policies, and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states." -- Joe Wolverton
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- "Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."
- =======
- No, it doesn't. That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking.
ROTFLMAO!
The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.
Never see:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...
,,, the right of the people to keep and ...
... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...
The right of the people to be secure ...
No person shall be held to answer for a ...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?
Regard$,
--MJ
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_guws441t0
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment