What do you think of the defendants' response?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
dawnirion dawnirion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What do you think of the defendants' response?

Todd Todd
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

Basically, they are saying that we cannot fight the ACA because "you don't have the right to do that." That's what I get out of reading the response.
vigilannie vigilannie
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by dawnirion
...same canned answer...
James D Miller James D Miller
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by dawnirion
Re: Van's summary of the response, it strikes me a congress assuming dictatorial powers, in that it (congress) can assume any power it wants, and the people have no recourse.  Wow, how far have we come down the road to socialism.
I hope that when the conservatives regain power in congress, that they waste no time in stopping the headlong rush to socialism and let the liberals know in no uncertain terms to sit down and SHUT UP.  
Patrioticstance Patrioticstance
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by dawnirion
How can they say that, the Constitution states that we can sue the President.

My fear is they are going to hurry up and change the Constitution to keep us from suing, and also to do a lot of power control.

He is already putting a halt to our 1st amendment,  a few weeks ago a man carrying an Impeach Obama sign was told he had to get rid of it. Since when does that happen, there were  many Presidents who people wanted out of office and they were allowed to express their opinion.

Obama has enforced an Internet shut down switch in which he can shut down the inter net when he wants, and the Feds. will only claim that it is for security purposes that is so not true.

So how do we beat this thing, how do we keep them from Changing our Constitution to hurt " We the people"?

Another question,  the emails that we were sent out,  is that allowed to post as is , posted meaning for the public to view or is that dangerous territory?  I'm thinking it might be for the liberals will attack that in every way they can think of.

Patrioticstance Patrioticstance
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by dawnirion
I really think we should try and Impeach this President.......again he is tearing our Constitution apart :

The Constitution and Impeachment

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:  And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

The Framers' Debates on the Impeachment Provisions (from the notes of James Madison, taken at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787):

Saturday, June 2

Mr. Dickenson moved "that the Executive be made removeable bv the National Legislature on the request of a
rnajority of the Legislatures of individual States." It was necessary he said to place the power of removing
somewhere.  He did not like the plan of impeaching the Great officers of State.  He did not know how provision
could be made for removal of them in a better mode than that which he had proposed.  He had no idea of abolishing
the State Governments as some gentlemen seemed inclined to do. The happiness of this Country in his opinion
required considerable powers to be left in the hands of the States.

Mr.  Bedford seconded the motion.

Mr.  Sherman contended that the National Legislature should have power to remove the Executive at pleasure.

Mr.  Mason.  Some mode of displacing an unfit magistrate is rendered indispensable by the fallibility of those who
choose, as well as by the corruptibility of the man chosen . He opposed decidedly the making the Executive the
mere creature of the Legislature as a violation of the fundamental principle of good Government.

Mr.  Madison & Mr. Wilson observed that it would leave an equality of agency in the small with the great States;
that it would enable a minority of the people to prevent ye. removal of an officer who had rendered himself justlv
criminal in the eyes of a majority; that it would open a door for intrigues agst. him in States where his
administration tho' just might be unpopular, and might tempt him to pay court to particular States whose leading
parfizans he might fear, or wish to engage as his partisans.  They both thought it bad policy to introduce such a
mixture of the State authorities, where their agency could be otherwise supplied. . .

    . . . On Mr. Dickenson's motion for making Executive removeable by Natl.; Legislature at request of majority of
State Legislatures was also rejected--all the States being in the negative Except Delaware which gave an

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html
Bob A. Bob A.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

Illegal seems to be being NORMAILZED
Marcus Mitchell Marcus Mitchell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by dawnirion
Well, I think that answer was to be expected.  It doesn't surprise me at all.  These people, considering themselves the "elites", have absolute arrogance, thinking they can get away with anything they want.  Obama studied law at Harvard, most folks don't know, he studied constitutional law.  From his actions it would seem he studied constitutional law to understand how to get by it/manipulate it/circumvent it/angle around it with his own agenda and undo it while selling his agenda as change we can hope for.  In my opinion, his behavior is treasonous.

Von Irion and team, thanks for all your efforts, you have my full support and respect.
Torm Howse Torm Howse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by Patrioticstance
sorry, although we WISH the Constitution expressly stated that we can sue the President, it does not.

HOWEVER, there *are* several expressly-provided statutes under the United States Code that DO STATE that, and much more, when it comes to Mr. Usurper.  (much more)
Marine Marine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by Patrioticstance

Patrioticstance says: “He is already putting a halt to our 1st amendment. A few weeks ago, a man carrying an “Impeach Obama” sign was told he had to get rid of it. Since when does that happen? There were  many Presidents who people wanted out of office and they were allowed to express their opinion.”  

If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent
    revolution inevitable.  
        ~ Pres. John F. Kennedy

~ Marine  f8x4n
danq danq
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by dawnirion
How significant is the Oath of Office if sovereign & presidential immunity renders it unenforceable?

I love how they repeat that this makes a political issue a judicial issue, given how liberal groups like the ACLU work. Then they claim that the "public interest" is on their side because problems in the health care system supposedly mean the public agrees with them.

Though according to polls, which Democrats always rely upon, the majority of the public doesn't:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Rob777 Rob777
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by Marcus Mitchell
Completely treasonous ,

And what bothers me is there is no representation for the state of Californian on this  if it wasn't for Van and other state officials I don't know what we would do what is wrong with the people in this country ?


But everyone is wright thay are trying to assume complete power by say we have no ground to stand on when it is the exact opposite (Congress ) passed a unconstitutional bill and over reached their authority.


According to this congress does not have the authority to force a mandate on the American people.

Purchase of Insurance under the Interstate comers clause.

First of all there is no "Trade" or "money" being exchanged congress is trying to force a purchase.

The "commerce law" only relates to the exchange of services or money and "that's it ".

Meaning congress only has the authority to mandate a "service are money exchange".

Thay have no authority under the "constitution of the united states" to create such an exchange under the" tenth amendment" of the constitution.


And that is why congress has "limited power" given to it by the people.

Thay can only mandate the actions of trade as described by the "constitution" under the "Tenth Amendment"
 
aric aric
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

In reply to this post by dawnirion
I have not yet had time to read the response for this suit, but I have for the Virginia and Florida suits.  Van's summary, though, expresses the simple difference between Constitutionalists and liberals:

Constitutionalist:  The Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass laws, but those laws are limited by the meaning of the plain text of the Constitution at the time it was written.  This is also known as strict constructionism.

Liberal: The Constitution is a "living document" that changes with precedent, allowing federal judges to effectively amend the Constitution by their decisions.

So this lawsuit is not about Obamacare per se, but it is about the authority of the Constitution.  What we need from this lawsuit is an affirmation by the courts that the Constitution is the ultimate precedent, and federal laws and federal judicial decisions are subject to it.

Unfortunately, we are asking the Federal Government for relief from the Federal Government, a clear conflict of interest given the current state of affairs.  The States, however, have Constitutional power in Article V of the Constitution that they have not used.  It is high time they used it.

P.S.:  The liberal view of the Constitution is untenable, IMHO.  If judges' decisions can override the plain text of the Constitution, then a Federal Judge could rule that Congress itself is unconstitutional, and we essentially live in a judicial oligarchy, not a republic.  In practice, that is indeed the case.

P.P.S: Also, IMHO, the practice of "judicial review" is unconstitutional.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Judiciary given the power to determine what is and is not constitutional.  That authority, by the 10th Amendment, falls to the States or the People.
danq danq
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What do you think of the defendants' response?

"Unfortunately, we are asking the Federal Government for relief from the Federal Government, a clear conflict of interest given the current state of affairs."

I've heard people talk about these sorts of issues. What comes to mind right now is a federal court case from the anti-income-tax crowd regarding typos in the 16th amendment in certain states, and the court ruled that because it was marked as received by the Secretary of State, the 16th amendment was ratified. The anti-income-tax people point to conflict of interest, since the judges are paid by the income tax.

However, anything higher would require a UN Constitutional Court system, and after the ruling in favor of the politicians who the UN answers to, we'd need to colonize outer space to go any higher.

So unless the states get the Senate and National Guard back, we're really kind of stuck with conflict of interest in the federal courts.

"Also, IMHO, the practice of "judicial review" is unconstitutional.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Judiciary given the power to determine what is and is not constitutional."

Most of us learn about Marbury v. Madison in grade school. But they don't teach you how to question things in grade school.