Re: Socialism

On 6/16/2010 4:55 PM, but @&*$?%Bush.com wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:18:37 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2010 12:35 AM, but @&*$?%Bush.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:37:50 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Judges INTERPRET the law.
>>>>
>>>> SO this judge today says it’s not illegal under the law and tomorrow the
>>>> new judge in the same chair decides it is illegal.
>>>
>>> Doesn’t work that way 90% of the time
>>>
>>> Without changing the constitution—the “interpretation” of a body of
>>> law sets a precedent, becomes doctrine—such as Marbury, Gideon, or
>>> Brown and case law takes from the decisions/opinions those things with
>>> lower judges follow
>>>
>>> You seem to forget that judges cannot read into law what can’t
>>> withstand appellate or USSC rulings, and most don’t reach that level
>>>
>>> But the gist of your incessant misconception of law is based on
>>> “literalism” and that is simply never been the case.
>>>
>>>> How do I plan my life around shifting opinions? MAybe I should just hide
>>>> in my house from the law that’s inconsistent.
>>>
>>> You’re constructing a straw-man out of nonsense “scenarious” and
>>> beliefs.
>>>
>>> Very FEW laws ever rise to the level of having to be interpreted
>>> differently than the legislation that engendered it—but when a
>>> conflict does arise (harm)—then the case may be subject to lower
>>> court rulings—on up to and/or including the USSC
>>>
>>> But that percentage/number is very small.
>>>
>>> Most cases are dealt with and never go past the first level. THose
>>> that reach the next tier are even less. The USSC must grant cert to
>>> even if the case has merit —and the just don’t want to hear it.
>>>
>>> The laws “you plan your life around” are seldom issues of contention.
>> With Obama they are daily issues of contention as he ignores the
>> constitution.
>>
>> Health Care and forcing me to buy insurance?
>>
>> HELLO…. tap!tap!tap! can you hear me?
>
> My “day to day” changes
>> because the commerce clause was never corrected and the ambiguity
>> removed. Instead…
>
> Utter rubbisn
>
> The commerce clause written centuries ago simply cannot apply to
> modern existence.
>
>> The _DAILY_ encroachment into my life by the Federal government is via
>> laws that the Federal courts are “interpreting” to mean all manor of
>> things that the Original READING and the Original Constitution Writing
>> had NOT included.
>
> That’s not a f&*$?%g “unconstitutional” act you simple witted idiot
>
> That’s a WHINE—nothing more.
>
>> Take a court case where “Hinkley” the guy that shot Ronald Reagan,
>
> In fact a long diatribe of nonsense…..
>
>> It is the end of Equal Justice. *Social_Justice* and *Equal_Justice*
>> can *NOT* coexist.
>
> The two are not synomymous.
>
>> DELEGATE = 1. to give or commit (duties, powers, etc.) to another as
>> agent or representative; depute
>>
>> The founders never wanted the Federal government to hold a gun to my
>> head and tell me to buy Insurance
>
> The founders had absolutely NO conception of what modern society would
> be.
>

The founders knew what freedom was and always will be….. it never
changes. What does change is the oppression we suffer under tyrannical
governments. They stopped government from endless power.

>> Free men
>> aren’t forced by their government at gun point to hand over their cash
>> to buy from a specific Business.
>
> Sure they are
>

NO but you don’t want freedom.

> By enactment of laws—using the accepted (by the founders and
> signators of the constittution) method of the rule of law.
>
>
>> When the Courts find something “new” in an existing law to use that
>> wasn’t there yesterday and previously unknown under that law,
>
> The Insurance reform law wasn’t existing prior to it’s enactment
>

It’s new in the constitution, the commerce clause is what Obanistas say.
Just what part of the constitution gives the Federal government
authority to take over my health care.

> Now the Courts will “interpret” what that law “means”
>

NO they will interpret the constitution to justify the law by
“interpreting” it so as to give the Federal government a *NEW* power
that they have never had before. Which is unconstitutional…. If the
Feds want that power they need to change the constitution with an amendment.