Posted on Jan 3, 2016
If a militia group breaks into and occupies a Federally owned building and won't leave, is that a crime, treason, terrorism, or Patriotism?
27.7K
450
317
8
8
0
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
The story:
Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.
He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.
"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.
Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.
Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.
The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.
Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.
Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.
"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.
Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.
"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.
Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.
-- Les Zaitz
What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?
The story:
Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.
He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.
"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.
Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.
Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.
The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.
Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.
Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.
"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.
Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.
"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.
Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.
-- Les Zaitz
What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?
Posted in these groups: 
Terrorism
Patriotism
Terrorism Patriotism
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 42
0
0
0
I suppose that depends on whether the Federal government even has the authority to "own" operate, or otherwise control such a property. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution tells us this about the ONLY properties the Federal government is permitted to control.....
"Congress shall have the power.... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
This brings into question where the Federal government came to be in possession of "Federal wildlife preserves". Is there another Amendment to the Constitution giving the Federal government the power to own Federal parks, wildlife preserves, watersheds, and a whole host of other designated properties that are not listed in the Constitution? Keep in mind the 10th Amendment tells us...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, if the power to own, operate, or otherwise control such properties is not specifically granted the Federal government BY the Constitution, then those lands belong to the States, or to the People, respectively.
I would also add that the Federal government owns approximately 1/3 of all land in the US. Unconstitutionally so, one might suggest by any objective reading of the Constitution.
Respectfully interested in your answers to these questions.
"Congress shall have the power.... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
This brings into question where the Federal government came to be in possession of "Federal wildlife preserves". Is there another Amendment to the Constitution giving the Federal government the power to own Federal parks, wildlife preserves, watersheds, and a whole host of other designated properties that are not listed in the Constitution? Keep in mind the 10th Amendment tells us...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, if the power to own, operate, or otherwise control such properties is not specifically granted the Federal government BY the Constitution, then those lands belong to the States, or to the People, respectively.
I would also add that the Federal government owns approximately 1/3 of all land in the US. Unconstitutionally so, one might suggest by any objective reading of the Constitution.
Respectfully interested in your answers to these questions.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Are you seriously this misinformed about how federal wildlife refugees where formed - I suggest you go back to your history books. Oh an a further point that several folks here have forgotten - another 'minor' peace of history (I wonder if it is even taught anymore).
None of the lands outside of the original 13 states was owned by 'states' most of it came into possession of the FEDERAL government through either purchase from various other governments, settlement and or conquest. All the these lands where FEDERAL territories and later where GRANTED statehood through the federal government through acts of Congress The federal government specifically reserved the right to certain lands within the states, either to preserve mineral and logging rights, or other public use for the common good or allotted by treaty as Indian reservations.
Wild life refugees and federal parks where founded by acts of congress - not by fiat. Representatives and Senators from those states had the opportunity to vote on such acts (those areas that where territories didn't get a say - they where federal land to begin with)
By the way - the federal building that the wild life refuge sits on - it was originally part of a reservation ... so if it goes back to the 'people' as the yahoos demand, it goes back to the original owners - the indians.
The historical illiteracy is frightening - seriously.
None of the lands outside of the original 13 states was owned by 'states' most of it came into possession of the FEDERAL government through either purchase from various other governments, settlement and or conquest. All the these lands where FEDERAL territories and later where GRANTED statehood through the federal government through acts of Congress The federal government specifically reserved the right to certain lands within the states, either to preserve mineral and logging rights, or other public use for the common good or allotted by treaty as Indian reservations.
Wild life refugees and federal parks where founded by acts of congress - not by fiat. Representatives and Senators from those states had the opportunity to vote on such acts (those areas that where territories didn't get a say - they where federal land to begin with)
By the way - the federal building that the wild life refuge sits on - it was originally part of a reservation ... so if it goes back to the 'people' as the yahoos demand, it goes back to the original owners - the indians.
The historical illiteracy is frightening - seriously.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
GySgt Carl Rumbolo - Thank you for the info. And though I AM aware of how the Federal parks and wildlife refuges were created, the pertinent question, is: Was their creation Constitutionally permitted in the first place? As you correctly pointed out the Aboriginal Reservations were ceded by Treaty, which are Constitutional in nature, approved by 2/3 of the Senate, so, since we agree, we can set that issue aside. So, I would like to ask a few questions if that's ok.
1) Do you agree that the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land"?
Since this is pretty much universally recognized as true, I assume you agree. (If
you do not agree with that statement, please let me know, as there is little else to
discuss regarding this issue.)
2) Does Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution read as follows...?
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
(Since this is quoted from the Constitution itself, I'll assume you stipulate this to be true as well.)
3) Do you have the understanding that the section above allows the Federal government to have jurisdiction over ONLY the properties listed above, namely the 10 miles square of the District, and over "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings:"? OR, is it your understanding that the Framers, when they wrote this clause, really meant to add wildlife refuges, and Federal parks, and a host of other non "common defense" oriented properties?
4) Does Article IV Section 3 read as follows?
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
5) Based on the quoted section above, is it your understanding that Congress DOES have the power to regulate TERRITORIES (that is, property not belonging to a State)? (that is my understanding)
6) Based on the quoted section above, is it your understanding that Congress DOES have the power to regulate Property belonging to the United States? (That is my understanding.
7) Is it your understanding based on the quoted section above that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union" Since that's a direct quote, I'll assume you will stipulate as so.
8) Is it your understanding that once part of a territory is transferred to a State, that property is no longer a territory, but rather a State?
9) And IF the property belongs to a State, how can the Federal government maintain possession of property other than those specifically permitted in Article I, Section 8?
10) Can you point to another clause in the Constitution, or to any of it's amendments that gives Congress the NEW Constitutional power to possess, , own, operate, or regulate properties other than those listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution? If you can, I look forward to reading it.
11) Last question: Does the 10th Amendment read as such?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am not historically illiterate regarding HOW those properties came into being. I understand the Federal government made "deals" with some of these States, and that it also declared areas of already admitted States as "Federally protected" lands. The point is, the Constitution does NOT allow the Federal government to make such "deals" that would cede to itself property, (OR powers not enumerated by the Constitution) within a State, that fall outside the enumerated properties specifically listed in the Constitution. Certainly, the Framers did NOT want the Federal government to have ownership of 31% of ALL US Property as it now does. This wasn't an oversight, this was purposeful. The Framers Understood that all over Europe, the Monarchies owned and/or controlled ALL property, and parceled it out to the nobles, to increase political or military power. The Framers understood this to be antithetical to the property based system they had created.
Regarding your statement about homesteading, that is really not an issue here, as those activities took place in Territorial lands, which we both agree, the Constitution allows the Federal government to control.... right up until that portion of the territory became a State. At which time, the Federal government could only possess the types of property permitted it, by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We still have a number of Territories, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and about 4 sq km of "Minor outlying islands" in the Pacific.
Now this is not to say that the Federal government can't purchase, operate, or lease property in a State, such as a "Federal building", U.S Mints, Custom's houses, etc. as "needful buildings."
Thank you for your post, I hope this provides food for thought.
Regards
1) Do you agree that the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land"?
Since this is pretty much universally recognized as true, I assume you agree. (If
you do not agree with that statement, please let me know, as there is little else to
discuss regarding this issue.)
2) Does Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution read as follows...?
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
(Since this is quoted from the Constitution itself, I'll assume you stipulate this to be true as well.)
3) Do you have the understanding that the section above allows the Federal government to have jurisdiction over ONLY the properties listed above, namely the 10 miles square of the District, and over "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings:"? OR, is it your understanding that the Framers, when they wrote this clause, really meant to add wildlife refuges, and Federal parks, and a host of other non "common defense" oriented properties?
4) Does Article IV Section 3 read as follows?
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
5) Based on the quoted section above, is it your understanding that Congress DOES have the power to regulate TERRITORIES (that is, property not belonging to a State)? (that is my understanding)
6) Based on the quoted section above, is it your understanding that Congress DOES have the power to regulate Property belonging to the United States? (That is my understanding.
7) Is it your understanding based on the quoted section above that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union" Since that's a direct quote, I'll assume you will stipulate as so.
8) Is it your understanding that once part of a territory is transferred to a State, that property is no longer a territory, but rather a State?
9) And IF the property belongs to a State, how can the Federal government maintain possession of property other than those specifically permitted in Article I, Section 8?
10) Can you point to another clause in the Constitution, or to any of it's amendments that gives Congress the NEW Constitutional power to possess, , own, operate, or regulate properties other than those listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution? If you can, I look forward to reading it.
11) Last question: Does the 10th Amendment read as such?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am not historically illiterate regarding HOW those properties came into being. I understand the Federal government made "deals" with some of these States, and that it also declared areas of already admitted States as "Federally protected" lands. The point is, the Constitution does NOT allow the Federal government to make such "deals" that would cede to itself property, (OR powers not enumerated by the Constitution) within a State, that fall outside the enumerated properties specifically listed in the Constitution. Certainly, the Framers did NOT want the Federal government to have ownership of 31% of ALL US Property as it now does. This wasn't an oversight, this was purposeful. The Framers Understood that all over Europe, the Monarchies owned and/or controlled ALL property, and parceled it out to the nobles, to increase political or military power. The Framers understood this to be antithetical to the property based system they had created.
Regarding your statement about homesteading, that is really not an issue here, as those activities took place in Territorial lands, which we both agree, the Constitution allows the Federal government to control.... right up until that portion of the territory became a State. At which time, the Federal government could only possess the types of property permitted it, by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We still have a number of Territories, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and about 4 sq km of "Minor outlying islands" in the Pacific.
Now this is not to say that the Federal government can't purchase, operate, or lease property in a State, such as a "Federal building", U.S Mints, Custom's houses, etc. as "needful buildings."
Thank you for your post, I hope this provides food for thought.
Regards
(1)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
SSG Gerhard S. - It appears you missed a couple of salient points:
1. In regard to territories that later became states - as part of their act of statehood - admittance to the union, the Congress, comprised of the duly elected members representing the states consented to the terms of statehood. Your argument about the constitutionality of this was actually tested in the courts in the 1890's and found correct by SCOTUS.
2. Similarly the congressional acts that established state and federal parks and preserves in the original 13 states where either acts by the state legislature or by act of congress. Again those where challenged and ruled correct by the courts.
Further, some state parks which later became part of the federal park system where obtained by eminent domain at the state level, and then given to the federal government. The principle of eminent domain has been challenged numerous times and is settled law.
And by the way - most military bases in the United States have been established by eminent domain, or on lands reserved to the federal government during acts of statehood. Similarly, the courts have ruled that existing territories of the United States - Guam for example, do not have the same 'states rights'.
While there is a reasoned argument that perhaps the federal government controls too much land, making the argument that it 'state' land fails a test of both logic and judicial precedence. (Unless you want to make a case against the rule of law).
If you want to make a case that the federal government controls too much land, fine - but please explain how that land will be protected against over development and preserved for future generations?
1. In regard to territories that later became states - as part of their act of statehood - admittance to the union, the Congress, comprised of the duly elected members representing the states consented to the terms of statehood. Your argument about the constitutionality of this was actually tested in the courts in the 1890's and found correct by SCOTUS.
2. Similarly the congressional acts that established state and federal parks and preserves in the original 13 states where either acts by the state legislature or by act of congress. Again those where challenged and ruled correct by the courts.
Further, some state parks which later became part of the federal park system where obtained by eminent domain at the state level, and then given to the federal government. The principle of eminent domain has been challenged numerous times and is settled law.
And by the way - most military bases in the United States have been established by eminent domain, or on lands reserved to the federal government during acts of statehood. Similarly, the courts have ruled that existing territories of the United States - Guam for example, do not have the same 'states rights'.
While there is a reasoned argument that perhaps the federal government controls too much land, making the argument that it 'state' land fails a test of both logic and judicial precedence. (Unless you want to make a case against the rule of law).
If you want to make a case that the federal government controls too much land, fine - but please explain how that land will be protected against over development and preserved for future generations?
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
GySgt Carl Rumbolo - Thank you for your thoughtful response. Respectfully, I would start by saying that I didn't miss those Salient points. In fact, I disregarded those points consciously.
I believe I may have a better understanding of your position on these issues based on your response. In my first question above, I made the assumption that you recognized the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land". Clearly, your response suggests that you recognize supreme court decisions as the Supreme law of the land. It seems, by your response, unless I misunderstand, that it's your position that 5 judges on the Supreme court are able to create Federal powers where none exist in the Constitution, and to also expand Federal powers listed in the Constitution, as much as it wishes, regardless what the Constitution says. Your comments lead one to believe your position is one that the Constitution should be held up to these Supreme Court decisions, rather than the idea that the Supreme Court decisions should be measured against the words, clauses, and principles of defined and limited government that are written into the Constitution. If I understand you incorrectly, I apologize, but this is the tenor I have received from your words above.
The Supreme Court's powers are limited by the Constitution as well as are the powers of the Executive, and Legislative Branches. Article III of the Constitution tells us what the powers and limitations of the Supreme court are. The fact that the Court has been acting outside the bounds of the Constitution through "Judicial review" and "case law", is not something to celebrate, or cite, but rather something that should be remedied, for there is NO such power granted the judiciary in Article III. I would challenge you to place your finger on that clause granting the court such power. Here is a link to Article III.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Again, the defense that "We've been doing it this way for a long time" does NOT change the fact that these actions of expanding Federal powers NOT enumerated by the Constitution through Judicial Review, ARE, themselves Unconstitutional.
Thomas Jefferson had similar concerns regarding the Supreme Court, understanding early on, the dangers of a overly powerful court.
1."The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
Perhaps we'll have to respectfully agree, to disagree regarding the role and supremacy of the Constitution.
Regards
I believe I may have a better understanding of your position on these issues based on your response. In my first question above, I made the assumption that you recognized the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land". Clearly, your response suggests that you recognize supreme court decisions as the Supreme law of the land. It seems, by your response, unless I misunderstand, that it's your position that 5 judges on the Supreme court are able to create Federal powers where none exist in the Constitution, and to also expand Federal powers listed in the Constitution, as much as it wishes, regardless what the Constitution says. Your comments lead one to believe your position is one that the Constitution should be held up to these Supreme Court decisions, rather than the idea that the Supreme Court decisions should be measured against the words, clauses, and principles of defined and limited government that are written into the Constitution. If I understand you incorrectly, I apologize, but this is the tenor I have received from your words above.
The Supreme Court's powers are limited by the Constitution as well as are the powers of the Executive, and Legislative Branches. Article III of the Constitution tells us what the powers and limitations of the Supreme court are. The fact that the Court has been acting outside the bounds of the Constitution through "Judicial review" and "case law", is not something to celebrate, or cite, but rather something that should be remedied, for there is NO such power granted the judiciary in Article III. I would challenge you to place your finger on that clause granting the court such power. Here is a link to Article III.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Again, the defense that "We've been doing it this way for a long time" does NOT change the fact that these actions of expanding Federal powers NOT enumerated by the Constitution through Judicial Review, ARE, themselves Unconstitutional.
Thomas Jefferson had similar concerns regarding the Supreme Court, understanding early on, the dangers of a overly powerful court.
1."The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
Perhaps we'll have to respectfully agree, to disagree regarding the role and supremacy of the Constitution.
Regards
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I am not sure ... let see if they start shooting ... then I will jump into the conversation. :)
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
PO3 (Join to see) - I'm sure there will be academic exercises delving into this. In the meantime, here are a few peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the cognitive impairment of people with the mindset of the Oregon Terrorists.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand
http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/low-effort-thought-promotes-political-conservatism-2012.pdf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand
http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/low-effort-thought-promotes-political-conservatism-2012.pdf
Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
Are people born conservative?
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - Which in many way, that is somewhat truth. But look the opposite side, if that assumption is true, then the other end should be true too right? :)
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
PO3 (Join to see) - Socialists and anarchists? I think that everyone knows that they're crazy lol.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - lol apparently not everyone :) lol or else we won't in such trouble now.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google