Marbury vs Madison

[Gonz]

From another thread.

Checks & Balances. The courts do not necessarily have final word. That was their ruling in Marbury VS Madison and is the source of many of todays troubles. Judiciary legislation. That's unconstitutional.

"It is time for progressives to set a constitutional agenda for the 21st century."

In April, Yale Law School's chapter of the American Constitutional Society sponsored a conference titled "The Constitution in 2020." The event was designed to foster leftist policies into being, with the consent of neither voters nor elected officials. Perhaps this strategy should be expected in light of the desperation of many leftist politicians to remain in office these days. Not surprisingly, one of the conference's main financial backers was left-leaning and Bush-bashing international financier George Soros.

The professor promoted taxing the "wealthy" to create a "citizenship inheritance" of $80,000 for every young adult to use as each sees fit.In addition, Ackerman and other conference speakers believe that we as a nation need convicted murderers, rapists and other felons to help us select our leaders at the ballot box.

"It is important to be clear on what is meant by 'the Constitution,'" he said, churning up thankfully forgotten days when we wondered what the meaning of the word "is" is. "That idea could of course be limited to what is technically part of constitutional law as the Supreme Court understands it. Much more ambitiously, it could include anything deemed 'constitutive' of national commitments and principles."

The professor referred at length to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's proposed "Second Bill of Rights," which would invent bizarre, socialistic governmental guarantees our Founding Fathers never could have dreamed of.

Rights to a well-paying job, housing, health care, education, recreation and even freedom from "unfair competition" are included in this imagined constitution.

I'm sure that, given their deep seated & well rooted differences in policy, style & substance of government, Madison & Jefferson would stand side by side, fully armed, to stop men & women like these from destroying what was formed to be a more perfect union. After all, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" did not allow for a power weilding judicial branch to go unchecked.

WND

 

[Winky]

yer really startin' to piss me off

*grabs gunslip and heads off to the range*

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

I'm sure that, given their deep seated & well rooted differences in policy, style & substance of government, Madison & Jefferson would stand side by side, fully armed, to stop men & women like these from destroying what was formed to be a more perfect union. After all, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" did not allow for a power weilding judicial branch to go unchecked.

There are a lot of other things it didn't allow for either. But we're supposed to be OK with those, right?

 

[Gonz]

Keeping the country whole is among their powers