Re: Socialism

On 6/14/2010 7:24 AM, Josh wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 6/13/2010 9:37 PM, but @&*$?%Bush.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:35:42 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have the actual written words that back my view, what made up
>>>> imaginary rule of law are you using?
>>> You are using an imaginary “interpretation” of the amendment
>>>
>>> THere is NO such concept that you’ve been whining about
>>>
>>> NONE.
>>
>>
>> “Amendment X
>> 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.”
>>
>> I see no power given to the Federal Judiciary to delegate Constitutional
>> powers. If it’s NOT *IN* the Constitution it’s NOT a power delegated
>> *BY* the constitution.
>
> What do you mean by the power of the Federal Judiciary to delegate
> Constitutional powers?

If it isn’t written in the constitution…. the Supreme court can’t
find it there.

Because if the power is meant to be there, the Congress “could” ratify
it in actual words with an amendment. There would be zero need to amend
the constitution if the Supreme court were authorized to find powers in
the constitution that are NOT written. This circumvents the need for a
VOTE by the 535 senators/representatives and gives that power to 9
people. The problem is that the Courts are doing what Congress is
supposed to do, which means we have no representation as per the NEW
powers given to the Federal Government. The Constitution was set up to
give THE PEOPLE representation and this bastardized process of courts
doing anything more than saying “NO it’s not written in the
constitution” is an affront to Representative government. It breaks down
the entire system of checks and balances. The federal Government can
become a MONSTER that is out of control.

For the written words in the constitution to have any meaning, you have
to limit the powers to what is written…. And there is NO written
powers given to the Judiciary that allows them to create powers that
aren’t written in the constitution. The Judiciary can rule on what is
written but they have no power to rule on powers NOT written.

If it’s NOT written in the constitution as a power given to the Federal
government, the only ruling the Federal courts can make is that they
have no Jurisdiction to rule. And that forces the legislature to
consider writing an amendment adding powers to the constitution to put
it in writing so that the courts will have jurisdiction to hear that case.

When the process is corrupted and the courts simply say it’s an implied
power that isn’t written but is a power given by the constitution then
they have circumvented amendment 10 that requires the power be given “BY
the constitution”. The power is NOT being given by the constitution but
is being given by the courts.

If the government wants the powers they have to follow the
constitutional process to get them, they did it with Prohibition and
since then they have generally ignored the constitutional process and
used the courts to create these new powers. The reason is that the
Leftists and Progressives learned via the Prohibition results that
things *done in writing* in the constitution could be repealed and
things that are vague and NOT in it *in writing* could not be so easily
removed, things ambiguously said to be there by the courts won’t be
removed.

–