PDA

View Full Version : Reassert the Constitution...By Arresting Judges


Davian93
12-18-2011, 08:03 PM
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/gingrich-capitol-police-could-arrest-radical-judges.php?ref=fpa

Yeah, just think about that GOP. Separation of what?

Res_Ipsa
12-18-2011, 08:09 PM
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/gingrich-capitol-police-could-arrest-radical-judges.php?ref=fpa

Yeah, just think about that GOP. Separation of what?

Funny a few friends and I were just having this discussion. Not what Gingrich said but rather how they are the last vestiges of the monarchy and are very autocratic and authoritarian.

I personally do not care about what side claims to adhere to the Constitution anymore. You have Republicans with PATRIOT and now this new crap about American citizens and you have Democrats who pay lip service but really have no regard for much of its basic protections which could be said of Republicans in the same regard. The only area where Republicans are the out and out winner is the 2d Amendment which is by far the most basic and fundamental right an individual possesses as it safeguards the rest.

Davian93
12-18-2011, 08:16 PM
Which is why conservative GOP stronghold Vermont has the most lenient gun laws in the country...:rolleyes:

And why gun control has been a non-issue under Obama.


An Independent judiciary is one of the tenets of a real democracy where minority rights (those in any minority, not "race" minorities) are protected. Not a surprise that he thinks its a good idea to arrest judges he disagrees with.

Res_Ipsa
12-18-2011, 08:35 PM
Which is why conservative GOP stronghold Vermont has the most lenient gun laws in the country...:rolleyes:


Along with Alaska. Actually Alaska has more lenient firearm restrictions when it comes to shooting them. I can attest to that with first hand knowledge. +Vermont is an oddity among the modern leftist thought progression. It comes closest to recognizing true liberal aspects but then applies collectivist logic to much of its day to day.

Also, you say Vermont like they have widespread appeal among solidly Blue states when it comes to gun laws, do not kid yourself :rolleyes:

And why gun control has been a non-issue under Obama.


You must have missed all those nice documents coming out under Fast and Furious about Justice Department basing policy off the decisions.

+Obama's scion aka SofS Hillary Clinton is going around the side of the building:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

As a military guy you should know you do not attack an entrenched force head on and the gun lobby is among the most powerful. I assume you know all these things but its still kind of funny you do not admit to them.



An Independent judiciary is one of the tenets of a real democracy where minority rights (those in any minority, not "race" minorities) are protected. Not a surprise that he thinks its a good idea to arrest judges he disagrees with.

We are not a Democracy as you know and you missed the point entirely. Judges do not act to protect others power, they act to protect their own. They are, as I said, the last vestige of the monarchy in most of the western world. Your argument fails on an even more basic level; if we are a true democracy as you say, then it does not matter what minority rights are protected because it is majority rights. We are a Republic for a very substantial reason, protecting the rights of all. I actually hold a soft spot in my heart for autocratic judges since they were very instrumental in enforcing federal laws in the jim crow south (granted with the guns of federal troops supporting them).

BTW, an interesting tidbit in history is that Lincoln toyed with arresting CJ Taney after Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. I believe he did actually arrest Taney's brother; how far he actually thought about arresting Taney is a matter of debate.

The judiciary branch, while necessary, is the least basic branch of government behind the legislative and the executive branches respectively and there has always been that tension and always will be. It is not surprising Gingrich would play to those sympathies as any other politician has done.

BTW you talk of ignoring the US Constitution but why were you not calling for Obama's impeachment over Libya? He really is the rubber man, everything seems to bounce off of him. Then again, that might be the result of a complicit media and voting base.

Davian93
12-18-2011, 09:02 PM
I dont see how Obama violated the Constitution in Libya. The President has always had near total carte blanche powers when it comes to troops overseas. The War Powers Act itself has never been invoked despite threats to do so and that is because it is, in itself, likely unconstitutional. Congress could have denied funding for the operations if they were really worried about checking his power there. Its no different than any other President using his powers as Commander in Chief to affect military solutions overseas. How was Obama any different than Adams or Jefferson by interfering in N. Africa with a military solution?

I agree, we're not a true democracy...which is why we protect the rights of the minority. If we were a pure democracy, it would be 100% majority rule without thought towards protecting such rights.

BTW, an interesting tidbit in history is that Lincoln toyed with arresting CJ Taney after Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. I believe he did actually arrest Taney's brother; how far he actually thought about arresting Taney is a matter of debate.

The judiciary branch, while necessary, is the least basic branch of government behind the legislative and the executive branches respectively and there has always been that tension and always will be. It is not surprising Gingrich would play to those sympathies as any other politician has done.

Lincoln also thought it was good idea to export all the freed slaves to Africa...needless to say he wasn't always right. Should he have suspended Habeas Corpus in MD? No, probably not...it was above and beyond the rights given to the President in the Constitution...the same as when Jackson refused to enforce the decision not to remove the Cherokee (one of our nation's greater human rights abuses of the 19th century).

I personally think an independent judiciary is the greatest strength of our form of government.

GonzoTheGreat
12-19-2011, 05:37 AM
The only area where Republicans are the out and out winner is the 2d Amendment which is by far the most basic and fundamental right an individual possesses as it safeguards the rest.
Can you provide actual evidence for this assertion, or is it a belief that is totally separate from reality?

As a good area of investigation I would suggest Iraq. As the last couple of years have shown, weapons were quite easily available there. Yet, despite that, Saddam was still a worse* dictator than Obama is.

I just do not see any actual evidence for the idea that having a bunch of totally disorganised people with small firearms would protect against a heavily armed and well organised government with bad intentions.
As another example: the 2nd Amendment did not protect the black people against the effects of the Jim Crow laws, did it?

* I hope, at least, that you'll agree on that. If you really would've preferred Saddam to Obama, then that's a whole another discussion, I suspect.