Dear MJ: Of course the Constitution doesn't, by its SPIRIT. But
because there are only nine, not geographically apportioned justices,
the POWER of one justice still exceeds the power of the entire
Congress. And THAT is what is counter to the SPIRIT of the
Constitution and is thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! Know this, MJ: I
transcribed the original Constitution, word-for-word, into my computer
before I began rewriting such. Anyone doing so will realize how much
extraneous language is in there. And you will realize that the
Constitution was intended to protect the rights and the power of the
People to control government rather than to have "government power" be
limitless. My document empowers any law abiding citizen who is
knowledgeable of the "NC" as a whole to FIRE any elected official,
including the President of the USA, if such elected official ever
deliberately violates their civil rights. I agree with Clint Eastwood
that FIRING is appropriate for any public official not doing their
job. But since Obama is a treasonous SQUATTER in the White House I
say (for Clint) "Hang 'em HIGH!" — John A. Armistead —
On Sep 20, 8:36 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> <sigh>
> The Constitution is an agreement between Sovereign States.
> The Senate is the 'representative body' of those States.
> The Constitution does not provide the 'power' you suggest to the court.
> Have you ever ACTUALLY read the US Constitution?
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --L. SpoonerAt 06:28 PM 9/19/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ: The US Senate is prominently mentioned in the original
> Constitution. Such is an oligarchy, not a Representative Republic,
> and is thus unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court was "mentioned",
> and happened to be part of an entire article relative to the courts.
> Airheads wrongly assumed that because the latter was explained in a
> separate article that there was this intent (sic) that there be a
> balance of power, with the courts being equal to the executive and to
> the "Congress"—which as a 'total' (with the Senate) is
> unconstitutional. Nowhere is the Supreme Court given the power to do
> anything other than to say, "yea or nay" to Constitutionality, and to
> refer any questionable law back to the Congress to bring into
> compliance, or else to rescind that law. But what we have is BIASED
> justices being so thrilled to have been nominated, that they vote on
> issues the way the President(s) who nominated them would wish. Thus,
> the God damned Supreme Court has become this "alternate" way to get
> controversial things enacted, such as the clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL
> Obama Care!!! My "NC" castrates the entire court system to never be
> considered part of some imaginary "balance of power". I know that I
> am right on this, because the "swing" vote of a single justice now has
> more 'power' than the entire Congress. I can assure you that the
> Founding Fathers only wanted levels of appeal in order to be certain
> -that no individual wrongly gets long sentences or is put to death.
> The above should point out the "constitutionality" is an issue of
> effect, not of the means. The effect of political parties is to allow
> either of two biased groups to control our government. If FAIRNESS
> matters to you, MJ, you will understand that political parties have no
> more right to be controlling our government than labor unions and
> right-to-lifers. Deciding issues by which group is the strongest was
> the norm for millennia, and THAT is what our forefathers were fleeing
> from when they formed the USA. Anyone who defends 'group' anything,
> is against having the USA survive as a nation. Get on-board, MJ!
> There are worthy adversaries to moral government that you should be
> attacking. I want the USA to survive! And the quicker Obama can be
> hanged for TREASON, the better! — John A. Armistead —
> On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > <sigh>
> > LOTS of things are not mentioned in the Constitution -- does not make them unconstitutional.
> > The people will NEVER be in equal control of the Government nor should they. Government -- legitimate Government -- secures (natural) rights <period>. Anything else necessarily provides advantage to some at the expense of everyone else. This reduces Government to just another run-of-the-mill GANG.
> > What does this 'control' look like? 50%+1 forcing 50%-1 to do as they wish?
> > A Political Party -- an association of people with an 'elective' goal -- is in no way unconstitutional.
> > Members of said Parties USING Government to garner advantage for said parties and similar *IS* unconstitutional.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "Americans upset by laws, regulations, and policies are constantly demanding government reforms. But, on reflection, this demand is almost preposterous, because the people are calling on the very persons who, to promote their own interests, created the offensive laws, regulations, and policies in the first place. Calling for the rulers to reform the government is like calling for cats to befriend mice or for cannibals to take up vegetarianism." -- Robert HiggsAt 08:26 AM 9/19/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ: Political parties aren't mentioned in the original
> > Constitution. The main objective of the latter is to have the people
> > to be equally in control of government. I've explained the rationale
> > quite clearly. What you state is freedom of association. Apart from
> > that, when any group having any ideology interjects itself between the
> > people and the government that they are supposed to control, that is
> > an entirely different form of government than the sought, but never
> > realized, Representative Republic the Founding Fathers had in mind.
> > Look at the EFFECTS not just the associations, and you will realize
> > that having dominate group power is NOT why the USA was formed! — J.
> > A. A. —
> > On Sep 18, 8:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Political parties are NOT unconstitutional.
> > > When they use Government to secure advantage, those ACTIONS are certainly unconstitutional.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > "Politics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper, eternally chanting Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum! It has been so in the United States since the earliest days. The whole history of the country has been a history of melodramatic pursuits of horrendous monsters, most of them imaginary: the red-coats, the Hessians, the monocrats, again the red-coats, the Bank, the Catholics, Simon Legree, the Slave Power, Jeff Davis, Mormonism, Wall Street, the rum demon, John Bull, the hell hounds of plutocracy, the trusts, General Weyler, Pancho Villa, German spies, hyphenates, the Kaiser, Bolshevism. The list might be lengthened indefinitely; a complete chronicle of the Republic could be written in terms of it, and without omitting a single important episode." -- H.L. Mencken, 1926At 09:23 AM 9/16/2012, you wrote:Dear Keith: Political parties began with the objective of "beating-the-
> > > bushes" to be sure there would be candidates running who would be
> > > acceptable to a particular faction if such candidate(s) got elected.
> > > Soon it was realized that the best benefit to the faction would be to
> > > use its growing influence to try to assure that the candidate favored
> > > by the faction would get elected. At that point, political parties
> > > became UNCONSTITUTIONAL! A process too many of us now accept as the
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://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