Real, or illusion?
RichD
Frisbieinstein
I hoped that a Democratic government would restore the rule of law in
the USA but have been sadly disappointed. Washington doesn't give a
shit about the law.
So now that they are out of power the Republicans are talking law?
What a surprise.
studio
> I hoped that a Democratic government would restore the rule of law in
> the USA but have been sadly disappointed. Washington doesn't give a
> shit about the law.
>
> So now that they are out of power the Republicans are talking law?
> What a surprise.
They also like to become fair-weather Libertarians when out of power,
but could care less about Libertarians when in power.
Fox News just recently hired John Stossel to give the Libertarian
slant highlighting some flaws in the system.
Where was Fox News the previous 8 years?
Rest assured, if a Republican got elected next election, John Stossel
would suddenly be out of a job.
RichD
> >http://tinyurl.com/wsj-legal-chall
>
> > Is there any hope?
>
> of law in the USA but have been sadly disappointed.
You're kidding, right?
> Washington doesn't give a shit about the law.
But they all take the Constitutional oath... it's almost
a joke, but too nauseating.
I've asked a few law forums when was the
last time the 9th or 10th amendment was
referenced in any court decision, but no answer.
> So now that they are out of power the Republicans are
> talking law? What a surprise.
We live in a one party state... the Republicrats.
--
Rich
studio
> I've asked a few law forums when was the
> last time the 9th or 10th amendment was
> referenced in any court decision, but no answer.
I'm still trying to figure out how they get around the 13th amendment
when it comes to the draft.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involutary servitude, except as
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to thier jusidiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Oh, I answered my own question, there it is in section 2. They simply
don't enforce it.
Deadrat
48c14d...@15g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 13, Frisbieinstein <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://tinyurl.com/wsj-legal-chall
>>
>> > Is there any hope?
>>
>> I hoped that a Democratic government would restore the rule
>> of law in the USA but have been sadly disappointed. �
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
>> Washington doesn't give a shit about the law.
>
>
> But they all take the Constitutional oath... it's almost
> a joke, but too nauseating.
>
> I've asked a few law forums when was the
> last time the 9th or 10th amendment was
> referenced in any court decision, but no answer.
The Supreme Court recognized the claims of civil service employees against
the Hatch Act as originating in the 9th and the 10th Amendments. (United
Public Workers v. Mitchell 330US75 (1947)). The Court found that
Congress' power to regulate its employees overrode the right for them to
engage in political activities.
Justices Douglas and Goldberg cited the 9th in support of the right to
privacty in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381US479 (1965), which stopped the
states from banning contraceptives.
The 9th came up in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448US555 (1980),
which reversed the closing of a trial to the public. The basis for the
decision was the 1st and 6th Amendments (through the 14th, of course), but
Virginia's claim that the right to a public trial isn't specifically
mentioned in the Constitution was rejected with reference to the 9th.
As for the 10th, the Supreme Court famously noted that it "added nothing to
the [Constitution] as originally ratified." United States v. Sprague,
282US716 (1931). Thus the 10th isn't cited much, except to prohibit
"commandeering," i.e., requiring the states to enforce federal law (e.g.,
New York v. United States, 505US144 (1992). Which is why the feds use
bribery (or extortion, depending on your point of view).
That do it for ya?
<snip/>
> Rich
>
Deadrat
d3471b...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
Well, that's the problem with answering your own questions when you're an
ignoramus.
The answer may be found in court rulings, e.g., from the Supreme Court in
United States v O�Brien, 391US367, 377 (1968) and from the 7th District in
United States v Holmes, 387F.2d781, 784 (1968). It turns out that the
explicit grant of power to Congress for raising armies precludes
classifying conscription as an illegal act, namely slavery as outlawed by
the 13th Amendment.
Of course, this doesn't make a draft any more voluntary or more palatable
to you perhaps, but it isn't legally slavery.
I guess it's a good thing that we don't have a draft, eh?