Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Gay marriage challenge in the next few years

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Gay marriage challenge in the next few years

    Originally posted by Good1
    First, to clarify, ALL sexual activity is a behavior AND a choice. Homo-, hetero-, A-, or Demi- we each choose whether or not to engage in sexual behavior. There is no innate bio-mandate that forces us to have sex, get out of bed, or strike our significant other.

    Further, while the jury is still out on whether or not an individual can inherit or can have a gene mutate into a predilection towards homosexuality, we open a significant door to sexual aberrations if we go further than that because other sexual preferences AND deviance swill be lining up to have THEIR preferences validated as well.

    People are born with an innate (but eventual) heterosexuality. Unless something (s) in their environment during their formative years pushes them towards another path, they will eventually become heterosexual.
    except for that "gay gene" we've been talking about in the other thread. ANd the epigenetic factors during formation of the FETUS. Other than that :P:

    ?


    • #47
      Re: Gay marriage challenge in the next few years

      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      It is a behavior protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.

      When you pass and amendment that says

      Congress shall make no law respecting homosexual activity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
      we can have this conversation.
      While very true I will admit, it seems we are still somewhat selective which is protected condition or behavior and which is not protected condition or behavior. Technically speaking, there is very little in the 1st Amendment we can categorize as condition. Condition in terms of Constitutional protections came later to address some societal grievance. In any event we seem to be inching closer to conversations on what should (as opposed to is) worthy of protections. My point is the further we go down this road the more likely we will either have so many they become irrelevant or (and) they get pitted against one another. One could argue well that if "homosexual activity" makes enough gains then that behavior will become pitted against the behavior of religion.

      ?


      • #48
        Re: Gay marriage challenge in the next few years

        Originally posted by Sluggo
        As I've hinted before, perhaps we should reconsider what is and is not protected behavior or condition. More to the point, look at methods to reduce specific protections as it is clear we are on a collision course with which one wins.
        Quoted for likeatude. We don't need protected classes. We need to hold to our existing rights.

        ?


        • #49
          Re: Gay marriage challenge in the next few years

          Originally posted by Good1
          First, to clarify, ALL sexual activity is a behavior AND a choice. Homo-, hetero-, A-, or Demi- we each choose whether or not to engage in sexual behavior. There is no innate bio-mandate that forces us to have sex, get out of bed, or strike our significant other.
          A small point, that only applies to ALL consensual sexual behavior

          People are born with an innate (but eventual) heterosexuality. Unless something (s) in their environment during their formative years pushes them towards another path, they will eventually become heterosexual
          Really, sorry that dog won't hunt. I never chose heterosexuality, I was always attracted to the opposite sex. I know gay people that were always attracted to the same sex. Some folks swing both ways. That's just the way it is.

          ?


          • #50
            So here it is. Judicial tyranny won't stand.

            Judges don't make law, they only render "opinion"

            "Gay marriage" won't last just because a few goofball judges said it's something other than a sick fantasy.

            The challenge to this silly opinion about marriage and who gets to - WANTS to - involve the state in their relationships is up & running . . .

            ----------------------------

            Saturday, 22 April 2017....

            North Carolina are fighting back by introducing a bill that would nullify that Obergefell v. Hodges opinion.

            Filed April 11 by four Republican lawmakers, House Bill 780, also known as the Uphold Historical Marriage Act, states, Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of 34 North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.

            The bill correctly asserts that SCOTUS overstepped its constitutional bounds when ruling against NCs ban on government recognition of faux marriage. It states, The General Assembly of the State of North Carolina declares that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of the United States Supreme Court of 2015 is null and void in the State of North Carolina, and that the State of North Carolina shall henceforth uphold and enforce Section 6 of Article XIV of the North Carolina Constitution, the opinion and objection of the United States Supreme Court notwithstanding.

            As Ive explained repeatedly, Obergefell was poorly reasoned and serves to undefine marriage. It also was so patently unconstitutional that late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting Obergefell opinion that it lacked even a thin veneer of law, as he called the Court a threat to American democracy. If our elected officials wont even stand against this, their oaths were the utterances of liars.

            First, its not just that nullification is the rightful remedy for all federal usurpation of states powers, as Thomas Jefferson instructed. Its that leftist claims that its something radical are a ruse, only rolled out when the nullification contradicts the leftist agenda. After all, what do you think the more than 200 sanctuary city (outlaw, actually) jurisdictions defying federal immigration law are engaging in?

            Tragically, this is another instance where politicians are dispensing with constitutional principles in the face of cultural pressure. Its also an example of how conservatives are just that conservative as in defensive. While liberals happily nullify even constitutional laws they dislike, conservatives cant even muster the courage to oppose blatant violence done to the Constitution.

            ....presidents, governors, and legislators takes oaths to uphold the Constitution, just as judges do.

            They do not take an oath to uphold court opinions.

            Obergefell is not just unconstitutional but as with every other court ruling it isnt even law. Its called an opinion for a reason. And any dutiful president or governor would just ignore it based on what it is: a rogue opinion.

            They have their judicial power. If they can say what law means in contravention of the legislators original intent ... and what lawmakers may even say at the moment and if the legislature must abide by their decision, they have arrogated to themselves the legislative power. And if they can tell the president that he cannot enforce a given law or he must execute a certain action, then theyve arrogated to themselves the executive power as well.

            Result: You have the executive, legislative, and judicial powers in the hands of one party the courts. You have tyranny.


            The reality is that the courts enjoy their extra-constitutional power at the other two branches pleasure, and in particular only with the acquiescence of chief executives, the president and governors. As soon as the latter say, to paraphrase President Andrew Jackson, The courts have made their decision; now let them enforce it, that power goes bye-bye.



            https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...rriage-opinion

            ?


            • #51
              I guess they don't uunderstand how the law works. There's a body of laws, and those are consulted to make a decission. It's not rocket science, but it is how the law works.

              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                I guess they don't uunderstand how the law works. There's a body of laws, and those are consulted to make a decission. It's not rocket science, but it is how the law works.
                Only because no one has challenged it. The Supreme Court has no method of enforcing their opinions, that is up to the Executive branch. Legislature makes the laws, the Courts interpret those laws and the Executive enforces them. As the article says, the Court simply issues opinions. The Supreme Court has vastly overstepped it's bounds many times with its politically motivated opinions and that is why the court today is just an unelected legislative body.

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                  ....The Supreme Court has vastly overstepped it's bounds many times with its politically motivated opinions and that is why the court today is just an unelected legislative body.
                  So why were you applauding Gorsuch in another thread?

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                    So why were you applauding Gorsuch in another thread?
                    Probably because IF we're to have an "unelected legislative body" - which we shouldn't have, but we DO - at least we might hope to get individuals put in there with no ringadingalingalong agenda to force on the country with their bizarre & arrogant opining.

                    ?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      Probably because IF we're to have an "unelected legislative body" - which we shouldn't have, but we DO - at least we might hope to get individuals put in there with no ringadingalingalong agenda to force on the country with their bizarre & arrogant opining.
                      While I have no real compunctions against Gorsuch I'm pretty darned sure there's a crap load of people out there that do indeed see him as part of a ringadingalingalong aggenda.
                      Last edited by JDJarvis; 04-25-2017, 07:33 PM.

                      ?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                        While I have no real compunctions against Gorsuch I'm pretty darned sure there's a crap load of people out there that do indeed see him as part of a ringadingalingalong aggenda.
                        Like every other supreme court judge today LOL

                        The courts have a place, and it is not legislating.

                        That is mainly what is wrong with it today I think. As is quoted above;

                        .......to paraphrase President Andrew Jackson, The courts have made their decision; now let them enforce it, that power goes bye-bye.

                        These peoples opinions only have effect if we the people and the other two branches of govt. allow them. It's not as if they are Gods sending us commandments from "on high."

                        They can be ignored, they really can. The country won't go up in a puff of smoke if we ignore these peoples often goofy opinions.

                        ?


                        • #57
                          When a law violates other laws of the nation a decission is made by the court to rectify this situation as laws shouldn't remain in place that both support and violate the same laws.

                          The Supreme court doesn't act on it's own any opinions of the Supreme Court are based on items brought to the court. They are one-third of the federal government. They can not be ignored for the U.S. to function as it was established and exsists within the legal framework of our entire government.

                          ?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                            When a law violates other laws of the nation a decission is made by the court to rectify this situation as laws shouldn't remain in place that both support and violate the same laws.

                            The Supreme court doesn't act on it's own any opinions of the Supreme Court are based on items brought to the court. They are one-third of the federal government. They can not be ignored for the U.S. to function as it was established and exsists within the legal framework of our entire government.
                            Yes, actually they can be ignored. They are NOT the final arbiters of all legal matters in America. We have a system of checks and balances that assures that they're not.

                            That many at all levels believe as you do, is why we now have crazy B.S. like "legal" abortion on demand and gay "marriage." If we accept these peoples opinions as commandments written in stone by God, we are over as a nation of free people.

                            And we have.

                            It will be interesting what believers like you will say when some crazy, hard core conservatives dominate that court . . .

                            ... you'll be saying the same thing

                            ?


                            • #59
                              As I was saying, that courts opinions can, and some SHOULD be ignored.

                              If we allow a small group of judges the power of final rulings by their OPINION on every legal matter in America, we get the destruction we deserve.

                              A small group of possibly mad men & women can "rule" and make "legal" ANYTHING. This is what we've been witnessing & allowing to be done to us !

                              Whether you're liberal or conservative, you are foolish to think this is Constitutional and healthy for America.

                              This should be upsetting to us ALL.

                              --------------------

                              A Supreme Court "opinion" (that's what the Supreme Court itself calls them not "rulings" or "laws" but "opinions") cannot possibly under any faithful construction of the Constitution create law.

                              Is abortion "the law of the land?" Absolutely not. Is same-sex marriage "the law of the land?" Absolutely not. The Court was never, ever given that kind of power by the Founders' Constitution.

                              ....how did we reach the place where nobody knows what the "law of the land" is until the Supreme Court rules? How did we get to the place where we all must hold our breath and cross our fingers and hope the Court stumbles into the truth? How did the Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power? The answer is easy: the Court stole it.

                              ...we no longer have even the pretense of three separate and co-equal branches of government. No, we have only one branch of government that counts, one branch of government that rules the other two branches with an iron fist. One branch of government which contemptuously allows the other two branches what limited freedom they see fit to grant. But when it comes to all-important decisions, federal judges have the unmitigated arrogance to think they get to decide every issue of significance for the rest of us and we just have to lump it, no matter how outrageous their opinions are.


                              [ not true ]

                              The only solution I see is for duly elected officials with constitutionally vested power to start ignoring these tyrannical judges. That's not civil disobedience, it's constitutional obedience. The judges are the ones engaging in civil disobedience by trashing the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution.

                              If President Trump were to direct immigration officials to refuse admission to Syrian refugees, what could anybody do about it? These judges could huff and puff and bloviate, but there is not a single thing they could do to stop it. They have no police force they can summon to enforce their opinions, by the design of the Founders as a limit on their power. If the federal judiciary can thumb its nose at the law and the Constitution, then it's perfectly permissible, in fact necessary, for President Trump to thumb his nose at them.

                              And if Attorney General Sessions simply refuses to issue Department of Justice grants to cities that harbor illegal alien felons, what could Judge Orrick do about it? Precisely nothing. He could huff and puff and threaten to blow Trump's White House down, but it would be nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.

                              The best thing the president could do to restore our constitutional republic would be to issue orders to immigration officials to stop the flow of Syrian refugees and immigrants from jihadi-prone Muslim nations, and direct Attorney General Sessions to withhold DOJ grants from civilly disobedient sanctuary cities starting today. As in right now.

                              If President Trump has the courage to do it, we just might begin to get our Constitution and our country back
                              .

                              --------------------------------

                              The Founders crafted a Constitution that establishes three separate and distinct branches of government: a legislative branch to pass laws, an executive branch to enforce them, and a judicial branch to use those laws to settle disputes.

                              Although the standard mantra is that they were designed to be "co-equal" branches of government, that's not what the Founders intended. The legislative branch is intended to be the supreme branch of government, since it and it alone has the authority to make laws.

                              The very first words in the Constitution, after the Preamble, are these (emphasis mine):

                              "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

                              The word "all" in the phrase "all legislative Powers" means all. As in every last little bit. According to the Founders' Constitution, then, how much legislative power does the executive branch have? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It's the job of the executive branch to implement laws, not to make them.

                              More to the point, how much legislative power does the judicial branch have, according to the Founders' Constitution? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It has been given absolutely zero authority to make law, to change law, or to rewrite law. It is thus impossible, if we are governed by the Founders' Constitution, for the Supreme Court ever to create "the law of the land" about anything whatsoever. A Supreme Court "opinion" (that's what the Supreme Court itself calls them not "rulings" or "laws" but "opinions") cannot possibly under any faithful construction of the Constitution create law.

                              Is abortion "the law of the land?" Absolutely not. Is same-sex marriage "the law of the land?" Absolutely not. The Court was never, ever given that kind of power by the Founders' Constitution.

                              So how did we reach the place where nobody knows what the "law of the land" is until the Supreme Court rules? How did we get to the place where we all must hold our breath and cross our fingers and hope the Court stumbles into the truth? How did the Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power? The answer is easy: the Court stole it.

                              And we let them do it. And we continue to let them get away with it.

                              The root of this pernicious state of affairs goes all the way back to 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall invented the concept of "judicial review" magically out of the ether. There is no place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is given the authority to decide what the law is and to decide what laws are constitutional and which ones aren't.

                              Two recent and glaring overreaches of the federal judiciary exemplify this twisted state of affairs. One is the ruling by a low-level, bottom-rung district judge in San Francisco setting aside the president's completely lawful executive order suspending immigration from six jihadi-prone Muslim nations. This judge paralyzed the entire government of the United States with no constitutional warrant or justification and made us vulnerable to terrorism at the same time. And everybody let him do it. Then another federal judge in Hawaii did the same thing. And everybody let him get away with it, too.

                              Then a federal judge in Northern California, William Orrick, forbade the Department of Justice to withhold grants from jurisdictions which proudly and defiantly break federal law by harboring illegal alien criminals and refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement. And again we as a nation let this self-appointed dictator shut down the wheels of government and endanger our national security. (It's worthy of note that Judge Orrick uttered not a word of complaint when President Obama threatened to withhold federal grants from school districts which did not allow grown men to shower with young girls.)

                              These two cases make it clear that the federal judiciary, stacked and packed by President Obama, is no longer in the business of rendering impartial rulings. No, it is in the business of advancing the progressive agenda no matter how badly judges have to twist and contort and mangle the law and the Constitution to do it. It is not Donald Trump who is trampling the rule of law and the Constitution, it is these arrogant and out-of-control oligarchs in black robes.

                              The bottom line is that we no longer have even the pretense of three separate and co-equal branches of government. No, we have only one branch of government that counts, one branch of government that rules the other two branches with an iron fist. One branch of government which contemptuously allows the other two branches what limited freedom they see fit to grant. But when it comes to all-important decisions, federal judges have the unmitigated arrogance to think they get to decide every issue of significance for the rest of us and we just have to lump it, no matter how outrageous their opinions are.

                              The only solution I see is for duly elected officials with constitutionally vested power to start ignoring these tyrannical judges. That's not civil disobedience, it's constitutional obedience. The judges are the ones engaging in civil disobedience by trashing the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution.

                              If President Trump were to direct immigration officials to refuse admission to Syrian refugees, what could anybody do about it? These judges could huff and puff and bloviate, but there is not a single thing they could do to stop it. They have no police force they can summon to enforce their opinions, by the design of the Founders as a limit on their power. If the federal judiciary can thumb its nose at the law and the Constitution, then it's perfectly permissible, in fact necessary, for President Trump to thumb his nose at them.

                              And if Attorney General Sessions simply refuses to issue Department of Justice grants to cities that harbor illegal alien felons, what could Judge Orrick do about it? Precisely nothing. He could huff and puff and threaten to blow Trump's White House down, but it would be nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.

                              The best thing the president could do to restore our constitutional republic would be to issue orders to immigration officials to stop the flow of Syrian refugees and immigrants from jihadi-prone Muslim nations, and direct Attorney General Sessions to withhold DOJ grants from civilly disobedient sanctuary cities starting today. As in right now.

                              If President Trump has the courage to do it, we just might begin to get our Constitution and our country back.


                              https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...-of-government

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X