Well surprise, surprise.
It was reported in the mainstream press that retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor supports Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to become the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
Ms. O'Connor is in her 80's, and became progressively more "liberal" in her opinions and interpretations of the Constitution as she winded down her tenure on the bench.
The highlight, of course, was in the fiasco surrounding George Bush's win in the U.S. Presidential election in which Ms. O'Connor stopped the ballot counting and declared Mr. Bush the winner.
Her comments reflected her attitudes as another of the "globalist" minded Supreme Court justices, stating that she felt Ms. Kagan had an adequate education, although never having served on a federal bench.
She was, however, the Dean of Harvard's Law School in which during her tenure she suspended mandatory Constitutional Law classes in favor of a more "progressive" globally based curriculum.
I wonder if she was Dean when Mr. Obama attended, before or after Constitutional law was removed as a mandatory requirement in Harvard's law school curriculum.
No matter, it is clear that it has was removed long, long before it was "officially" replaced by the globally focused curriculum in most law schools throughout the nation today post the 1960's, especially those on the East and West coast in those primarily blue states of the past.
Another Harvard elitist, and they are turning out a bunch of these globally educated lawyers who are dedicated to wiping the U.S. Constitution off the map, come hell or high water.
Such as the recent games that are now being played over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, where various factions and special interests, including the judiciary itself, are attempting to circumvent the Constitution with respect to the redress for those victims of the Gulf disaster by moving the venues around from Louisiana to other nearby states, or consolidating those cases.
Hail, Caeser. Another justice that believes in the "sovereignty" of the government as above the people, and not accountable to them.
And that the Constitution is a "thing of wax" or "living document" that can be bended and shaped at will by the mere strokes of a Supreme Court decision throughout the land.
Sad day for America.
And appears that Ms. O'Connor has not retired to private life at all, but still has her hands in the political high jinx in Washington, as one of the participants in this treason.
She now appears to be also focusing on promoting civics and government classes throughout the country.
Her brand it appears, which bears no relevance to history, or our intended form of government in any manner whatsoever as being one which was meant to insure the sovereignty of this country, and break from British rule and dominion.
By the way, part of Ms. Kagan's undergraduate study was gained at a British school of higher learning.
I wonder if Ms. O'Connor is aware of that?
Somehow it has been these Rhodes scholars, and British trained lawyers that are gaining seats in high levels of government at a remarkable rate.
Maybe this appointment came from the country who is really ruling the Hill as as is apparent in the Deepwater Horizon disaster which now has claimed another 11 American lives.
I wonder whether Ms. Kagan, if confirmed, as the British trained Globalist she clearly is, will take the usual oath of office, or instead simply kneel before the Chief Justice so that he can simply tap her on the shoulders instead with the royal gavel?
In any event, it appears that the status quo is remaining, and that Ms. Kagan, all political appearances to the contrary, is really replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the other Jewish woman on the bench so that the "living Constitution" global socialism agenda can continue unabated under this, and the next several Administrations.
One who also condones the abolishment progressively of the document that even gives those Justices their lofty positions to begin with, and was meant to constrain them, and not expanded their interpretative power to include foreign jurisdictions at all, especially monarchial, socialistic or communist based dictatorships, with the Bill of Rights meant to insure the people's rights and protection from the corporate, be it domestic, municipal or global.
Those "inalienable" God given rights those founders acknowledged as denied them in Europe, and which is purposely stated cannot be removed in the interests of "public policy" or "public safety" or "state interests" political legalese without the calling of a new Constitutional Convention and with the express consent of the American people, the governed.
Not polls, or political party agendas.
And definitely not because Germany, Britain, China or Russia does it.
Showing posts with label appointment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label appointment. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor: Not MY Judge!
For Any and All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:
After some sham public hearings, political rhetoric on both sides of the new Global Socialist Party holding court in D.C., and chess moves for re-election purposes with respect to the final vote and tally, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate today as the replacement for retiring Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court. The final vote, after all the drama and stand up vote count, was 68-31
Much fanfare was made due to this "historic" appointment in playing both the "race card" and also the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is the third woman to be appointed to the hallowed halls of the Court. Ms. Sotomayor may change the physical characteristics of the Court but it is unlikely she will change the complement of it in any manner since this court is still "liberal" insofar as Constitutional interpretation as mainly comprised of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now appointees. All liberal Administrations.
In fact, Ms. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench by a Bush, the first Bush, and it was the second Bush, George W., that referred to the Constitution as a "damn piece of paper" from all reports and whose actions post 9/11 certainly exhibited the reverence he and that Congress gave to the actual RULE OF LAW and government as set forth within its provisions.
It appears that Ms. Sotomayor in most of her responses is of like mind. As was most on the Senate panel conducting the staged public hearings with respect to her confirmation.
Her clear bias for prior precedents and judge made case law rulings was evident throughout the hearings when referring to the "Rule of Law," no matter how the panel members from both sides of the aisle tried to politically spin the issue with respect to Obama's seeking a candidate with empathy, and Ms. Sotomayor's statements with respect to her gender and race being a plus insofar as her intepretive skills over those of others.
Even when the Republicans were posturing with their objections, the main objections consisted of fear that she would not rule "according to the law" but her personal bias or emotion. But it was clear their objections were also "liberally" based in their definitions of the "Rule of Law" to which they feared she would stray as being those decisions and the many politically based prior court rulings, some of which are fundamentally and clearly outside the parameters of the Constitution.
Such as the most recent Kelo decision reached during the Bush Administration. And expanding the powers of the Executive Office outside their Constitutional restraints progressively, while diluting Congress's enumerated legal powers, and expanding the law making abilities of regulatory agencies that were never meant to have indpendent "law making" abilities with respect to the citizenry (NOT corporate business interests) in any manner whatsoever in their regulatory functions. Such as the off the wall IRS since its inception, and now the Department of Homeland Security in its jack boot bulletins and police state tactics.
In fact, Ms. Sotomayor's oath of office, as with all Justices, is to the Constitution itself, and not to any prior court rendering of it. So the liberals on both sides of the aisle used this appointment in order to deflect and distract most of all, not evaluate Ms. Sotomayor's rulings according to the true "RULE OF LAW."
And interesting the timing of Mr. Souter's resignation, and Ms. Sotomayor's new appointment.
Much has been publicized that Mr. Obama, just as the prior liberal Bush Administration, plans on addressing the status of the over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and from all reports very soon.
Although the American people spoke rather loudly and clearly the last time this was attempted with the McCain/Kennedy "Dream Act" in 2006 under a Bush directive while our southern borders, for the most part, remain unsecured and the funding cut or denied each time the appropriations bills come up under the Secure Fence Act also passed that year, while the citizens lawful and legal civil rights continued to be attacked and take a beating on the pretense of "national security" concerns.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) also heralded the appointment as "historic" along with the liberal media and press.
MALDEF, of course, is indirectly federally funded by the U.S. taxpayers due to the fact that there is a federal statute that provides for their legal fees and awards for any and all civil rights actions brought by them on behalf of Mexican Americans living in this country and who are natural or naturalized citizens.
However, within the last several years they have also been bringing suits against American citizens on behalf of many of those illegal immigrants, which costs for suit are also being honored and paid by the federal government and being billed then to the deficit and U.S. citizens.
Could this appointment have been a strategic maneuver on behalf of both "liberal" parties which have now merged into the Global Socialist Party after that foreign AIG bailout and Wall Street stimulus prior to addressing the amnesty once again in the event of a legal challenge to its Constitutionality?
Since any amnesty of those already in this country unlawfully under prior federal statutory law would clearly be an "ex post" facto law and thus unconstitutional in any event with respect to those already here who entered unlawfully or have remained other than for temporary work visa, green card or tourism reasons, and such actions would not address nor solve the problem of the influx of illegals which occurs each and every day without first securing with a physical deterrant the over 500 miles of open desert in which they, and the Mexican drug cartels and other "foreigners", cross each and every day. Simply continue the madness, and the confusion as to citizenship status.
And now with all the "privileges and immunities" given foreigners over the lawful and legal Americans, it would appear that those illegals would actually lose "rights" and their free health care, and untaxed wages if they should take Uncle Sam up on that offer anyway. Now that they have been given by the federal courts "standing" and equality and even preference over Americans rights in numerous court actions, how is it now advantageous for them to become peon Americans and potentially lose those jobs to the next crop of illegals to cross those borders within the next month or two?
Appointing such a judge also insures that the "race card" can then be used by the press and liberals again in order to silence the public in such an event, a method used now quite frequently and especially in light of the "hate crimes" legislation and continued threats of "domestic terrorism," and such event isn't unlikely given the recent despicable moves by Washington to continue with its agendas and "in your face" legislation favoring insourced and outsourced foreigner rights and further violating lawful American citizens civil rights (such as the AIG bailout, GM joint venture firing Americans while retaining ownership of outsourced GM plants in Mexico and China, war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and corporate America's outsourced foreign work force in India in tech and retail industries, etc.).
Before this country was settled for the most part even shortly after its founding, America's immigration policies were more restrictive than they are today.
The founders, after all, were protectionists building a new nation. We are in the midst of rebuilding after several natural disasters, and an economic tsunami due to amalgamating our economy with that of the global community unconstitutionally, and yet still affording carte blanche immigration to almost all comers. It has been reported that since 2006 several thousand "at risk" Iraqis now also have been added to the list annually amount to now over 20,000 native born Middle Easterners.
It will be interesting to see how this all unravels, but since we all know something has been rotten in Washington for now quite a number of years, it appears there is an agenda to the recent madness that is and continues to occur.
And this appointment smacks of "politics" and not "the Rule of Law" at all.
With more and more Americans now out of work and with the degree of insourcing that is occuring and increasing due to this worsening economy, such a measure is bound to create further outrage among the lawful population in this country.
In fact, through government contracts, the federal government itself is the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor, while continuing to increase the legal American citizens tax burdens in order to supplement and support this influx of cheap labor for their government contractors, and the big businesses and foreign investors in the financial sector on Wall Street.
In its actions, it appears Washington is almost begging for a civil war in the near future at least within the border states, the states which have been hardest hit with higher unemployment, homelessness and joblessness since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's, and are now under invasion from both the criminal property theft of the border hoppers, drug cartels and their distributors, and others that have resulted in the additional loss of Americans lives and jobs in the thousands in the eight years now since 9/11.
Stay tuned, America. The fireworks continue, and appears it is Washington that is promoting and facilitating purposely the civil unrest in this country with each and every Constitutional violation that is coming now off the Hill.
I'm wondering also, with all the still dissatisfied Americans that have been calling for the Constitutional proof of Mr. Obama's "natural born" or "naturalized" citizenship status prior to his running for the highest office in the land as should have been done due to the number of years in his youth he spent outside the United States and with one parent a non-citizen, if this push again so soon and with our economy now in the toilet, if there also is this other "political" agendas in that respect is also behind it.
The Supreme Court has been tap dancing on that one now for six months, and Congress just did attempt that little sleight of hand in a recent bogus Resolution introduced by a Hawaiian Congressman to in effect "declare" him a citizen again without any disclosure or documented proof that he so much as satisfies the bare minimal requirements for the Office in which he holds. Requirements that acually were based on the European gentry's ideas that children would be raised in this country until they were in their teens when they then left for their "European tours" to finish their educations abroad in languages and cultural differences. That was what was actually behind the 14 year provisions since geographic ties are normally formed in child and young adulthood.
And after that trick and the many, many before more so in the last eight years than at any other time, it is pretty clear that the powers that be on the Hill have no problem both violating the true "LAW OF THE LAND" or attempting in whatever unethical way possible time and again to facilitate end runs around it in order to further their liberalism, global socialism, power plays and political agendas at the cost of those they are truly charged to serve.
The AMERICAN people.
After some sham public hearings, political rhetoric on both sides of the new Global Socialist Party holding court in D.C., and chess moves for re-election purposes with respect to the final vote and tally, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate today as the replacement for retiring Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court. The final vote, after all the drama and stand up vote count, was 68-31
Much fanfare was made due to this "historic" appointment in playing both the "race card" and also the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is the third woman to be appointed to the hallowed halls of the Court. Ms. Sotomayor may change the physical characteristics of the Court but it is unlikely she will change the complement of it in any manner since this court is still "liberal" insofar as Constitutional interpretation as mainly comprised of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now appointees. All liberal Administrations.
In fact, Ms. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench by a Bush, the first Bush, and it was the second Bush, George W., that referred to the Constitution as a "damn piece of paper" from all reports and whose actions post 9/11 certainly exhibited the reverence he and that Congress gave to the actual RULE OF LAW and government as set forth within its provisions.
It appears that Ms. Sotomayor in most of her responses is of like mind. As was most on the Senate panel conducting the staged public hearings with respect to her confirmation.
Her clear bias for prior precedents and judge made case law rulings was evident throughout the hearings when referring to the "Rule of Law," no matter how the panel members from both sides of the aisle tried to politically spin the issue with respect to Obama's seeking a candidate with empathy, and Ms. Sotomayor's statements with respect to her gender and race being a plus insofar as her intepretive skills over those of others.
Even when the Republicans were posturing with their objections, the main objections consisted of fear that she would not rule "according to the law" but her personal bias or emotion. But it was clear their objections were also "liberally" based in their definitions of the "Rule of Law" to which they feared she would stray as being those decisions and the many politically based prior court rulings, some of which are fundamentally and clearly outside the parameters of the Constitution.
Such as the most recent Kelo decision reached during the Bush Administration. And expanding the powers of the Executive Office outside their Constitutional restraints progressively, while diluting Congress's enumerated legal powers, and expanding the law making abilities of regulatory agencies that were never meant to have indpendent "law making" abilities with respect to the citizenry (NOT corporate business interests) in any manner whatsoever in their regulatory functions. Such as the off the wall IRS since its inception, and now the Department of Homeland Security in its jack boot bulletins and police state tactics.
In fact, Ms. Sotomayor's oath of office, as with all Justices, is to the Constitution itself, and not to any prior court rendering of it. So the liberals on both sides of the aisle used this appointment in order to deflect and distract most of all, not evaluate Ms. Sotomayor's rulings according to the true "RULE OF LAW."
And interesting the timing of Mr. Souter's resignation, and Ms. Sotomayor's new appointment.
Much has been publicized that Mr. Obama, just as the prior liberal Bush Administration, plans on addressing the status of the over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and from all reports very soon.
Although the American people spoke rather loudly and clearly the last time this was attempted with the McCain/Kennedy "Dream Act" in 2006 under a Bush directive while our southern borders, for the most part, remain unsecured and the funding cut or denied each time the appropriations bills come up under the Secure Fence Act also passed that year, while the citizens lawful and legal civil rights continued to be attacked and take a beating on the pretense of "national security" concerns.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) also heralded the appointment as "historic" along with the liberal media and press.
MALDEF, of course, is indirectly federally funded by the U.S. taxpayers due to the fact that there is a federal statute that provides for their legal fees and awards for any and all civil rights actions brought by them on behalf of Mexican Americans living in this country and who are natural or naturalized citizens.
However, within the last several years they have also been bringing suits against American citizens on behalf of many of those illegal immigrants, which costs for suit are also being honored and paid by the federal government and being billed then to the deficit and U.S. citizens.
Could this appointment have been a strategic maneuver on behalf of both "liberal" parties which have now merged into the Global Socialist Party after that foreign AIG bailout and Wall Street stimulus prior to addressing the amnesty once again in the event of a legal challenge to its Constitutionality?
Since any amnesty of those already in this country unlawfully under prior federal statutory law would clearly be an "ex post" facto law and thus unconstitutional in any event with respect to those already here who entered unlawfully or have remained other than for temporary work visa, green card or tourism reasons, and such actions would not address nor solve the problem of the influx of illegals which occurs each and every day without first securing with a physical deterrant the over 500 miles of open desert in which they, and the Mexican drug cartels and other "foreigners", cross each and every day. Simply continue the madness, and the confusion as to citizenship status.
And now with all the "privileges and immunities" given foreigners over the lawful and legal Americans, it would appear that those illegals would actually lose "rights" and their free health care, and untaxed wages if they should take Uncle Sam up on that offer anyway. Now that they have been given by the federal courts "standing" and equality and even preference over Americans rights in numerous court actions, how is it now advantageous for them to become peon Americans and potentially lose those jobs to the next crop of illegals to cross those borders within the next month or two?
Appointing such a judge also insures that the "race card" can then be used by the press and liberals again in order to silence the public in such an event, a method used now quite frequently and especially in light of the "hate crimes" legislation and continued threats of "domestic terrorism," and such event isn't unlikely given the recent despicable moves by Washington to continue with its agendas and "in your face" legislation favoring insourced and outsourced foreigner rights and further violating lawful American citizens civil rights (such as the AIG bailout, GM joint venture firing Americans while retaining ownership of outsourced GM plants in Mexico and China, war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and corporate America's outsourced foreign work force in India in tech and retail industries, etc.).
Before this country was settled for the most part even shortly after its founding, America's immigration policies were more restrictive than they are today.
The founders, after all, were protectionists building a new nation. We are in the midst of rebuilding after several natural disasters, and an economic tsunami due to amalgamating our economy with that of the global community unconstitutionally, and yet still affording carte blanche immigration to almost all comers. It has been reported that since 2006 several thousand "at risk" Iraqis now also have been added to the list annually amount to now over 20,000 native born Middle Easterners.
It will be interesting to see how this all unravels, but since we all know something has been rotten in Washington for now quite a number of years, it appears there is an agenda to the recent madness that is and continues to occur.
And this appointment smacks of "politics" and not "the Rule of Law" at all.
With more and more Americans now out of work and with the degree of insourcing that is occuring and increasing due to this worsening economy, such a measure is bound to create further outrage among the lawful population in this country.
In fact, through government contracts, the federal government itself is the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor, while continuing to increase the legal American citizens tax burdens in order to supplement and support this influx of cheap labor for their government contractors, and the big businesses and foreign investors in the financial sector on Wall Street.
In its actions, it appears Washington is almost begging for a civil war in the near future at least within the border states, the states which have been hardest hit with higher unemployment, homelessness and joblessness since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's, and are now under invasion from both the criminal property theft of the border hoppers, drug cartels and their distributors, and others that have resulted in the additional loss of Americans lives and jobs in the thousands in the eight years now since 9/11.
Stay tuned, America. The fireworks continue, and appears it is Washington that is promoting and facilitating purposely the civil unrest in this country with each and every Constitutional violation that is coming now off the Hill.
I'm wondering also, with all the still dissatisfied Americans that have been calling for the Constitutional proof of Mr. Obama's "natural born" or "naturalized" citizenship status prior to his running for the highest office in the land as should have been done due to the number of years in his youth he spent outside the United States and with one parent a non-citizen, if this push again so soon and with our economy now in the toilet, if there also is this other "political" agendas in that respect is also behind it.
The Supreme Court has been tap dancing on that one now for six months, and Congress just did attempt that little sleight of hand in a recent bogus Resolution introduced by a Hawaiian Congressman to in effect "declare" him a citizen again without any disclosure or documented proof that he so much as satisfies the bare minimal requirements for the Office in which he holds. Requirements that acually were based on the European gentry's ideas that children would be raised in this country until they were in their teens when they then left for their "European tours" to finish their educations abroad in languages and cultural differences. That was what was actually behind the 14 year provisions since geographic ties are normally formed in child and young adulthood.
And after that trick and the many, many before more so in the last eight years than at any other time, it is pretty clear that the powers that be on the Hill have no problem both violating the true "LAW OF THE LAND" or attempting in whatever unethical way possible time and again to facilitate end runs around it in order to further their liberalism, global socialism, power plays and political agendas at the cost of those they are truly charged to serve.
The AMERICAN people.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
NeoCon Lindsay Graham To Back Sotomayor Appointment
Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina, has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.
Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.
Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.
I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.
It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.
Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.
So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.
The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.
Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.
And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.
The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.
Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.
Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.
The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.
Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.
Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.
I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.
It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.
Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.
So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.
The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.
Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.
And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.
The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.
Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.
Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.
The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
