A former litigation lawyer, who is well versed in the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers, speaks at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 27, 2013.
She speaks from the past on what is happening now with judges and the Supreme Court telling the President what he can/can’t do.
A very insightful 6.5 minutes.
Watch the video HERE.
Here’s the oath.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Okay this sounds good and all, but reasonable men can differ over the interpretation of clauses in the constitution, just as they can differ over what was meant by something arguably unclear in a contract.
There is no such person as a “state”. Do you really think that, e.g. the California legislature should weigh in on the meaning of the Constitution? E.g. Second Amendment? Immigration “due process”? Etc.
The Federalist papers, just like the legislative history recorded for statutes, are opinions. They may carry interpretive weight, but they are not the document. The entire Bill of Rights was added because some founding fathers, the Anti-Federalists, disagreed with the interpretations of Alexander Hamilton, who leaned toward a strong federal gpvernment.
Reality is that -someone(s)- have to make a final decision, else there is chaos. Who is that going to be. Get realistic. This woman is a retired “litigator”? Bfd. So are hundreds of thousands of other lawyers with opinions all over the place.
To a large extent although not close to perfect, if two branches of the government are aligned, that usually will carry the day. But not always. And Congress is cumbersome and frequently useless. (Blame the 17th Amendment for some of this.)
Yeah, no, the system isn’t perfect and never will be.
But much as I’d like Trump to be the arbiter of what the Constitution requires, I sure as hell don’t want another Wilson or Obama having that power.
A low level district court judge has ruled that the Supreme Court can ignore the Constitution.
Why doesn’t anyone ask ME? I wrote it, after all, then TJ and I went down to his slave shacks to celebrate!
Absolutely brilliant. I hope Bondi takes notice.
It doesn’t matter about the original intent of the Constitution – It has been changed by amendments. What matters is that our federal/state/local government is not abiding by its current intent. The 2nd amendment has not been repealed, therefore it is legal to own any and all weapons available today in any state. That is but one example. We are only living under an illusion of freedom.
Hamilton considered the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government, apparently by design. I wonder what he would think of today’s mantled monarchs?
We are the freest country ever, I have all the permits to prove it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200511104717/http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/
Our creature has been allowed to become a monster.