Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

This is a discussion on Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Sig 210 Yep, the US congress made a lot of noise, belched and did nothing to rein in the BATF. LOL But ...

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 350
Like Tree250Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #106
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Yep, the US congress made a lot of noise, belched and did nothing to rein in the BATF.
    LOL But the fact remains.. there were investigations, contrary to what was being said. What ever happens after that is up to Congress.

    Just like when Congress tried to impeach Clinton.. nothing.. a lot of hot air being vented and little else..
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,687
    Nothing done when the NBPP members were intimidating voters with batons outside the Polling location in PA.
    Nothing done when the NBPP put a bounty on Zimmermans head of 10K....violating the Rico Act.
    Nothing done when Acorn was advising people on how to avoid paying.
    Nothing Done, Nothing Done, Nothing Done...........Racisim at it's finest....IMO.

  4. #108
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    My intent in posting the Article 1 Section 8 was to show all the powers that Congress has and by posting Clause 18 specifically was to show the enormity of their power. Before I get into Section 8 again, I would ask that you look at Article 1 Section 1

    Since it seems that you did not read all of Section 8, I will post some of the clauses that most effect this discussion and I will highlight a few words for emphasis.

    Again you can follow along by using this link. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes
    Clause 3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    Clause 4 To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    Clause 5 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    Clause 6 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
    Clause 9 To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    Clause 10 To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    Clause 10 To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    Clause 14 To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    Clause 15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    Clause 16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Clause 17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
    Clause 18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    As you will see I did not post them all. I only posted the majority which require Congress to enact laws or rules and to establish courts as well as methods of disipline.
    The only item posted here that can even remotely be construed as an ENFORCEMENT right is Clause 15 and that requires that the government use citizens - the militia, not a standing army or cadre of federal law enforcement personnel - which are simply not authorized in any of the enumerated rights or the rest of the Constitution - no matter how you want to try to read them in.

    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Now I will go into Section 9 Which defines the Limits on Congress. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


    As you can see there are not many limits on what Congress can do.
    You conveniently left out the 10A which states - "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." What this means is that if something is not in the enumerated powers clause or otherwise specifically called out in the Constitution as a power of the feds, it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    If you wish to specifically see what the States can not do under our Constitution you only need to view The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
    All section 10 does is state, in the negative, several of the powers included in the enumerated powers clause. Not particularly elucidating to this discussion, but clearly the FF wanted to be sure the state understood certain parts of the enumerated powers clause.

    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Now, with it being Necessary and Proper for Congress to establish a Federal Law Enforcement Arm to enforce the many Laws that Congress shall pass.. Then under the 18th Clause they can do that. I will challenge you to show us where that is not the case.
    Your first sentence in this section is non sequitur. As much as you want it to be there, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes a federal law enforcement arm. Heck, stated that way, the FF would have rebelled again!!!

    Now if you actually want this Federal Law Enforcement Arm to be Constitutional, start an amendment drive to make it so. That is the beauty of the Constitution. The FF inserted a mechanism to allow future generations to adapt it to the needs of the time (or to destroy the whole thing). If you don't like what the Constitution says, and you can convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures you are right, POOF - it is changed. Until then, however, it says what it says.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  5. #109
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    K, my old pal here, what are you imbibing, or are you SD reincarnate?
    Actually at the time I was writing that, a Porter and a burger (hamburger, not Burger beer). I only had 1 beer and was not impaired. I am stuck in a commie state for a few months during the week and am disarmed by law, so I might as well have an occassional beer with dinner. Not sure what the reference to SD means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If the FBI itself is not constitutional as you hypothesize, shall we release Ted Kaczynski because he was caught by an unconstitutional investigation?
    While regrettable, that would be a natural consequence of an unconstitutional investigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Good grief. I know you know better.
    I do know better than to try to read things into the Constitution that simply are not there. As noted in my prior posts, if we want this stuff in the Constitution, we can put it there, but it is not there now.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #110
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    SD is a reference to a former member "SelfDefense" who was very opinionated on constitutional issues.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #111
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    The only item posted here that can even remotely be construed as an ENFORCEMENT right is Clause 15 ~~snip ~~ which are simply not authorized in any of the enumerated rights or the rest of the Constitution - no matter how you want to try to read them in. You conveniently left out the 10A which states - ~~ snip ~~ Now if you actually want this Federal Law Enforcement Arm to be Constitutional, start an amendment drive to make it so. ~~ snip ~~.
    My reference to Necessary and Proper was not non sequitur as it was used directly from our Constitution in the manner in which our Founders used it. You have to understand as our founders did, that what is necessary is not always proper and what is proper is not always necessary.. But our founders knew that there would be situations arising/occurring that would require Congress by being both Necessary and Proper that otherwise was not specified, which was the purpose of the 18th Clause in Article 1 Section 8 The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    With your diversions from the issues and attempts to mislead, I've been trying to decide whether you truly believe what you have been saying or are intentionally pulling an elaborate prank by trying to twist things to fit your purposes, the later of which no amount of rational explanation/education would do anything other than to add to the level of amusement that you may already be receiving from it. As I can't read your mind, to know for certain, I can only determine how important the misguided statements of one person is/are.

    So, in hopes that I am not merely the brunt of an elaborate hoax for your amusement, I will ask you a question.

    * As Congress has the power to make all laws needed to run the American Government;
    * As Congress has all authority to make the rules by which the Government runs;
    * As Congress had the power to and actually created the Lower Federal Courts with which to prosecute Laws;
    * As Congress has the Power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Do you not see where in order to Execute all of those Powers, that the Congress could not DO what is Necessary and Proper to Enforce all those laws that they have created, without creation and oversight of various Enforcement Divisions?

    Just to present a few of those Departments that are not specified:
    * ICE = Immigration and Customs to enforce the Import Laws..
    * DOJ = To oversee all Law Enforcement Agencies
    * IRS = To account for and enforce the 16th Amendment The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Just to name a few that are not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution but were/ARE Necessary and Proper for our Government to operate under the laws that Congress has passed.

    Think long and hard about your answer and be sure to provide more than simple rhetoric as justification for your beliefs.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  8. #112
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    So, in hopes that I am not merely the brunt of an elaborate hoax for your amusement, I will ask you a question.

    * As Congress has the power to make all laws needed to run the American Government;
    * As Congress has all authority to make the rules by which the Government runs;
    * As Congress had the power to and actually created the Lower Federal Courts with which to prosecute Laws;
    * As Congress has the Power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Do you not see where in order to Execute all of those Powers, that the Congress could not DO what is Necessary and Proper to Enforce all those laws that they have created, without creation and oversight of various Enforcement Divisions?

    Just to present a few of those Departments that are not specified:
    * ICE = Immigration and Customs to enforce the Import Laws..
    * DOJ = To oversee all Law Enforcement Agencies
    * IRS = To account for and enforce the 16th Amendment The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Just to name a few that are not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution but were/ARE Necessary and Proper for our Government to operate under the laws that Congress has passed.

    Think long and hard about your answer and be sure to provide more than simple rhetoric as justification for your beliefs.
    Nope, not a hoax - that would tick me off and I have no intent to do that to others.

    I agree with what you posted in the first set of "*" above being items specifically called for in the Constitution with the limitation that the laws Congress makes are supported by their limited scope of duties as enumerated in the Constitution. I also agree that the second set of "*" are being done in response to laws passed by Congress. Where we part company is on whether the second set of "*" are Necessary and Proper to enforce the first or even if some of the enabling laws passed by Congress are Constitutional.

    In the absence of states and their law enforcement capability, which is not against the US Constitution, a federal LE could possibly be read into the Constitution. The desire for the FF to have the states be the primary soverign (other than the people) and the federal government secondary and supportive to the states, there is nothing to suggest that the federal government would not rely on state LE efforts to enforce both state and federal laws. Heck, even to raise an army, the feds had to call on the states and people to participate.

    Yes there was a navy authorized in the Constitution, but that was for border defense and to provide a common defense against external enemies and required certain capital assets that could not be quickly raised. Today's army also has such assets and it would be pretty tough to defend a nation with what a militia could bring, so we have a standing army which is practically in violation of the Constitiution. The government gets around this provision, not by being faithful to the intent of the Constitution and honest with the people. Congress passes enabling resolutions every 2 years as a work-around to the Constitution. A government that wanted to be faithful to its governing document would have amended it to allow for a standing army and the people today would have no problem with such an amendment.

    Yes, there were certain FF that were in favor of a strong federal government, however, they had to compromise to have a less powerful federal government to get the Constitution ratified. The Constitution is not a document that allows the states and people certain privledges from an all-powerful federal government as some would like to see it. It was a document written and ratified by the states representing the people that created a limited federal government. The Constitution is the document that describes what that federal government is allowed to do - period. If it is not in the Constitution, the feds are not allowed to do it. I hear you on the necessary and proper clause, but that was not designed to be used to facilitate support for all manner of laws that are not in the federal purview. Another clause that has been tortured to the benefit of the feds and detriment of the states and people is the interstate commerce clause. That torture started with another Federalist - John Marshall in the very early 1800s. That makes it historical, not Constitutional.

    Abusing the necessary and proper clause as well as the interstate commerce clause has resulted in things like EPA, the Department of Education, DOE, BATFE and a host of other agencies that perform duties that have nothing to do with Constitutionally enumerated duties of the feds. The nature of any government is to expand, grow in size and power and, if left unchecked, consume those it is supposed to serve. Reading items into the Constitution is one way the Goverment has rationalized its expanding mission and the people have not been bright enough to say - get back in your box. At some point, and that point may be in the past, the government will be powerful enough (legitimately or not) to turn citizens into subjects. We will all rue that day.

    Where we differ is in how we read the Constitution. I think that it means exactly what its drafters said in it. Others want to read in or interpret what it says, in effect, guessing at what the FF meant. Folks, the Constitution was written to be understood by the common farmer of the day when it was written. It was not designed to be word-smithed, psycho-analyzed and otherwise tortured to work in what one wants to see there. There is a mechanism for that and it's called AN AMENDMENT.

    The FF knew that the Constitution would have to change to support our country in times that were different than theirs, so they gave us a mechanism to do that. Convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures that a change is needed and you will get your change. There are many things the feds do that are not Constitutional that they could amend the document to allow - a standing army for instance - but they are too lazy to do the work. We the people should stand up and say - This is what the Constitution says, if you don't like it, change it, but until you do, abide by it.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  9. #113
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    .

    In the absence of states and their law enforcement capability, which is not against the US Constitution, a federal LE could possibly be read into the Constitution. The desire for the FF to have the states be the primary soverign (other than the people) and the federal government secondary and supportive to the states, there is nothing to suggest that the federal government would not rely on state LE efforts to enforce both state and federal laws. Heck, even to raise an army, the feds had to call on the states and people to participate.
    But without federal law enforcement capabilities how could the people of New York City or San Francisco make sure that the people of Wyoming or Montana obeyed laws (like AWB/magazine capacity) that they didn't like? Without federal LE they would not be able to impose their values on others. It's not like they could really trust the people that live there to obey and enforce the law.
    Sig 210 likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #114
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    But without federal law enforcement capabilities how could the people of New York City or San Francisco make sure that the people of Wyoming or Montana obeyed laws (like AWB/magazine capacity) that they didn't like? Without federal LE they would not be able to impose their values on others. It's not like they could really trust the people that live there to obey and enforce the law.
    So some here think the Limbergh law is unconstitutional and the FBI shouldn't investigate kidnappings.
    I guess we are all entitled to our thoughts and our rationalizations even when they don't comport with reality.
    Federal Kidnapping Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Its an Alice in Wonderland viewpoint where posters here think they are the
    Queen, and 2 centuries of jurisprudence and practical reality count for nothing. They think the words "necessary and proper"
    have no meaning.

    Those who violated Federal law, typically taxation and embargoes, were caught and tried very early on in our constitutional history.
    An ex Vice President was hunted down and tried, though not convicted. Uncle has been in law enforcement from day 1, even in the days of the Confederation.

    I'm constantly amazed at all the former "Federalists" who post here who were happy to be "Federalists" during the prior administration but
    have suddenly decided The Executive should have no implied powers, and do nothing. Got news for you, especially the bunch who like
    to quote the Federalist Papers with no clue as to what they are: it is in there. (Not that it is law.)
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #115
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Those who violated Federal law, typically taxation and embargoes, were caught and tried very early on in our constitutional history.
    An ex Vice President was hunted down and tried, though not convicted. Uncle has been in law enforcement from day 1, even in the days of the Confederation.
    And that ex Vice President brings us full circle to Executive Privilege!
    If you recall Jefferson did not want to turn over certain diplomatic letters that were evidence in Burr's trial. Jefferson ended up surrendering enough of the documents that the Chief Justice who was presiding was satisfied and did not order him to surrender the rest.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #116
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    And that ex Vice President brings us full circle to Executive Privilege!
    If you recall Jefferson did not want to turn over certain diplomatic letters that were evidence in Burr's trial. Jefferson ended up surrendering enough of the documents that the Chief Justice who was presiding was satisfied and did not order him to surrender the rest.
    Yes, but we were discussing Congress's subpoena powers not the court's. I'm actually unconvinced that the courts should have any such power against The Executive Branch, but then I also see no way for anything to work right if they don't have that
    power.

    SD was controversial here because he adamantly held that Marshall lacked the powers which SD asserted Marshall arrogated to himself and the court.

    So, if there is a bottom line to this sort of endless discussion--- it works the way it works, and not necessarily because
    of the exact words in our constitution, but because of precedent and history.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #117
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    I just got a email from my House Representative, Vicky Hartzler about the email I sent her on the subject. I would like to share it with you all.

    Dear Friend,

    Knowing of your interest in government transparency and the urgent need for reform in the Department of Justice, I wanted to update you on recent Congressional actions related to the scandal known as Project Gunrunner, or Operation Fast and Furious. Since assuming office, I have grown increasingly concerned about the gross overreach of power and disregard for our Constitution displayed by many officials in government. Several months ago, I called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign due to his failure to instill accountability and respect for our laws at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

    Note: Please be sure to fill out the survey on the right side of this e-mail and let me know how you feel about the latest developments on Project Gunrunner. By doing so, you will also be added to my weekly newsletter list. Thanks so much for participating!

    The House of Representatives has called on Attorney General Holder to account for his role in Operation Fast and Furious in particular. As we learn more details about this gun-trafficking operation, we find astonishing recklessness and an appalling cover up effort. The Attorney General appears to have made troubling decisions to hide information from the public and from a Congressional inquiry. His lack of appropriate oversight during this operation ultimately allowed guns to disappear into criminal networks, and resulted in the death of at least one American law enforcement officer, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Unbelievably, of approximately 80,000 documents that DOJ has identified as pertaining to Fast and Furious, only 6,000 of them have been released for review. And, of the seventy DOJ officials involved in Fast and Furious, Members of Congress have been refused access to almost fifty individuals.

    These troubling actions by Attorney General Holder became more blatant at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing earlier this month. The Committee questioned Attorney General Holder repeatedly for the rationale behind transferring 2,000 weapons to Mexican gangs. Committee Chairman Darrel Issa has been exceedingly respectful of the Attorney General during these hearings, even allowing the deadline for submitting documents to be pushed back again and again. However, my colleagues and I are losing our patience with Mr. Holderís equivocation and obstruction. In a failure this profound we need truth and transparency. That is why Congressman Issa threatened the Attorney General with contempt for failure to share the information which has been subpoenaed for so long.

    I will continue to support Congressional efforts to hold the responsible parties accountable for their participation and approval of a flawed program that has contributed to the loss of American life. Given the obstructive nature of the Attorney Generalís recent Congressional testimony and demonstrated failure to fulfill his duties, I believe Attorney General Holder should resign. I believe that a public official who has failed to uphold integrity and has apparently misled the American people is no longer fit for service. I will be monitoring this issue closely in the months ahead.

    As always, please do not hesitate to share your perspective with me. It is a privilege to be your voice in Congress.


    Vicky Hartzler
    Member of Congress


    The Poll was asking if I thought Holder should be asked to resign. I voted YES.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  14. #118
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    So Hopyard if the three branches are co-equal, and one was to assert that a certain branch was not entitled to make demands on another then, all being equal, none could make demands on any. If the Executive did not have to answer to the legislature they would not have to answer to courts either, Nixon would have won and never had to produce the tapes. A president could rule by executive order. The legislature and executive could pass any law they wanted and simply ignore the Constitution. Judges could simply rule on any case how they saw fit and dismiss cases with prejudice if they didn't like the law that was broken. And the judiciary not being subordinate in any way to the legislature or executive there would be no way to remove such judges from the bench.

    Do you agree that the three branches are equal or do you feel there is a pecking order?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #119
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, but we were discussing Congress's subpoena powers not the court's. I'm actually unconvinced that the courts should have any such power against The Executive Branch, but then I also see no way for anything to work right if they don't have that
    power.

    SD was controversial here because he adamantly held that Marshall lacked the powers which SD asserted Marshall arrogated to himself and the court.

    So, if there is a bottom line to this sort of endless discussion--- it works the way it works, and not necessarily because
    of the exact words in our constitution, but because of precedent and history.
    If I recall SD was controversial for more than that Hop, although I hadn't been a member very long before he was shown the door.
    "Don't start none, won't be none!"

  16. #120
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So Hopyard if the three branches are co-equal, and one was to assert that a certain branch was not entitled to make demands on another then, all being equal, none could make demands on any. If the Executive did not have to answer to the legislature they would not have to answer to courts either, Nixon would have won and never had to produce the tapes. A president could rule by executive order. The legislature and executive could pass any law they wanted and simply ignore the Constitution. Judges could simply rule on any case how they saw fit and dismiss cases with prejudice if they didn't like the law that was broken. And the judiciary not being subordinate in any way to the legislature or executive there would be no way to remove such judges from the bench.

    Do you agree that the three branches are equal or do you feel there is a pecking order?
    You quite correctly reiterated my point, though I think that wasn't your intent. It can't work if each totally guarded their powers.

    As to your last sentence. They are equal in their own spheres. There is no pecking order. At various times in our history
    one or the other believed itself on top. Presently, I'm afraid it is the Judiciary which has too much apparently arbitrary power.
    So though I think Marshall correct (I know his views were Adam's views), I could throw my towel in on SD's side of the discussion just to keep the conversation lively.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amending u-4 for a complaint where rep is not mentioned
,
complaint seek law license of eric holder unabridged complaint
,

congressperson for concealed carry

,
eric holder 2nd amendment
,
eric holder to be pardon by executor order
,

fast and furious david voth testifing house issa plead the fifth

,
issa page 418
,
rep issa
,
rep. issa skeletons in closet
,
skeletons in rep issa's closet
,
why this is going nowhere with eric holder
,
wiretaps and grand jury transcripts and holder
Click on a term to search for related topics.