Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob <becida AT comcast.net>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes
  • Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:12:39 -0700

I can see you don't like the SC but that is the way it works <shrug>.
Of course we can always change the Constitution.

Rob

At 7/5/2005 08:58 PM, you wrote:
At 07:58 PM 7/5/05 -0700, you wrote:
>At 7/5/2005 04:26 PM, you wrote:
>
>
>>However, it all really boils down to the point that we will either be ruled
>>by man, or be ruled by law. If we choose the rule of law, which we should
>>since that is how our country is set up, then the highest law of the land
>>is the Constitution, completed with the Amendments.
>
>Yes and where there is a question about the Constitution meant the final
>say is the Supreme Court. That IS the law.

The Supreme Court has been not intrepreting the Constitution but making new
law. To say that they *are* the law is to simply throw out the
Constitution.

The true laws are the checks and balances with specific duties outlined in
the Constitution.

The Constitution is actually a very straightforward document that anyone
could, and should, study and learn. It is our duty as citizens to
understand it for ourselves, so that we can keep the country where it needs
to be.

>
>>When the government creates new law contradictory to the Constitution it is
>>treason.
>
>That is NOT treason... People just love to toss that term around. Here is
>what the Constitution calls "treason".
>
>
>Article III
>Section 3
>Clause 1:
>
>Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
>against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Who would you say is the enemy? In my mind it would be anyone wanting to
overthrow the country's and put forth new laws...which means anyone wanting
to overthrow the Constitution *would be* the enemy.

>>With that said, these particular passages spell out why eminent domain is
>>wrong:
>
>It's not wrong if the SC says it's ok.... Maybe 'wrong' is not the best
>word, 'legal' would be better.
>Taking someone's home so some business can use the land is sure not right,
>it's legal but not right!
>

Really? That is *not* what the Constitution says, and *it* is the law.

The way you intrepret politics is scarily treading on dictatorship by the SC.

Best wishes,
Melody
_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/becida%40comcast.net
View the archives at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page