Re: Socialism

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… the Ambiguity increases as the courts create new
openings with their interpretation. The Courts are making the problem
worse and not better(which was always the plan of the Leftists). It has
been a 100 year war on our freedom that keeps tightening the noose.

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. And remember Amendment 10….. If it isn’t a *power*
delegated to the United States, it doesn’t have it. So the process of
“interpreting” is giving powers, that were *not* delegated by the
Constitution but that the COURTS have actually delegated. Only things
written in the constitution can can be delegated… if it is inferred
or hinted at or implied then it isn’t “delegated” by “the Constitution”.

Take a court case where “Hinkley” the guy that shot Ronald Reagan, he
did it for Jody Foster, he saw that Jody Foster inferred or implied or
hinted that Foster “wanted” Hinkley to shoot Reagan. Was that in Jody
Foster’s communications? NO… and she wasn’t held as a co conspirator
because it wasn’t in Writing that she wanted Reagan shot. It was never
a fact and the Federal courts that are interpreting also have no
facts(written proof) that the founders ever intended to force me to buy
insurance. The Difference is as huge as the difference between Social
Justice and Equal Justice, Equal Justice uses the FACTS…. Social
Justice allows the courts to take into consideration thing like RACE or
childhood experience…. This idea of interpreting is Social Justice.

It is the end of Equal Justice. *Social_Justice* and *Equal_Justice*
can *NOT* coexist.

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(I am sure since that was never a power
given to the Federal government)….. but somehow the *Federal_Courts*
have allowed the Federal powers to be twisted and morph into
this(interpreted law) actually being considered.

By doing this type of moving the “bar” in the middle of the game, they
are creating an *ex post facto law* You are making me a slave and ex
post facto declaring that I have been a slave all my life. Free men
aren’t forced by their government at gun point to hand over their cash
to buy from a specific Business.

When the Courts find something “new” in an existing law to use that
wasn’t there yesterday and previously unknown under that law, and then
enforce it on us for past deeds, is to have created an ex post facto
law. Because we were functioning under a different version of that law,
we could only plan our day under the known and therefore written version
of the law.

–