Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA sits out gunfight with feds
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 1167086" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>Though the United States under the Constitution is stronger than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation, the Union was still meant to be limited in scope and the Constitution maintains the separation of powers between the Union and the several states with the several states having far more powers than the Union. The strong state thing didn't fall apart, the Union simply didn't have enough power to keep peace and harmony between the states under the Confederation. The failure was not with the states, the problem was the weak Confederation. </p><p></p><p>Henchman is correct. The Constitution does not grant power to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. No one is granted power in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. All who are in positions of power under the Constitution are commanded by oath or affirmation as a requisite of holding office; from the President "...to... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ..."; and all others "... to support this Constitution; ...". That is strictly a <em>READ AND OBEY</em> commandment.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All made possible by the usurpation of power blessed by the Court when it said "regulate" included "prohibit" and "restrain" in its definition, and the stripping of the power of the several states' legislatures to have a voice in Congress by Seventeenth Amendment. </p><p></p><p>Many people misconstrue <em>Marbury v. Madison</em> to mean that the Court has the power, or assumed the power, to interpret the Constitution and assumed the power to declare unconstitutional law unconstitutional. 'Twern't the case. Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789 tried to give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus. Marbury and others went to the Supreme Court, invoked that Judiciary Act of 1789 to force the Madison administration to complete their appointments with a <em>writ of mandamus</em> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Form the Justices themselves - "read" and "obey". No mention of "interpret".</p><p></p><p></p><p>The Court is laying down the law that they must abide the Constitution.</p><p></p><p>And next the meat:</p><p></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>This is not the Court "interpreting" the Constitution, nor is it the Court assuming such power.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>If the NRA's Board of Directors understood this, maybe they'd be a little more inspired to challenge all these unconstitutional anti-gun-rights laws we suffer under. These laws are detrimental to the security of our free state.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Woody</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 1167086, member: 745"] Though the United States under the Constitution is stronger than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation, the Union was still meant to be limited in scope and the Constitution maintains the separation of powers between the Union and the several states with the several states having far more powers than the Union. The strong state thing didn't fall apart, the Union simply didn't have enough power to keep peace and harmony between the states under the Confederation. The failure was not with the states, the problem was the weak Confederation. Henchman is correct. The Constitution does not grant power to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. No one is granted power in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. All who are in positions of power under the Constitution are commanded by oath or affirmation as a requisite of holding office; from the President "...to... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ..."; and all others "... to support this Constitution; ...". That is strictly a [i]READ AND OBEY[/i] commandment. All made possible by the usurpation of power blessed by the Court when it said "regulate" included "prohibit" and "restrain" in its definition, and the stripping of the power of the several states' legislatures to have a voice in Congress by Seventeenth Amendment. Many people misconstrue [i]Marbury v. Madison[/i] to mean that the Court has the power, or assumed the power, to interpret the Constitution and assumed the power to declare unconstitutional law unconstitutional. 'Twern't the case. Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789 tried to give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus. Marbury and others went to the Supreme Court, invoked that Judiciary Act of 1789 to force the Madison administration to complete their appointments with a [i]writ of mandamus[/i] Form the Justices themselves - "read" and "obey". No mention of "interpret". The Court is laying down the law that they must abide the Constitution. And next the meat: [b] This is not the Court "interpreting" the Constitution, nor is it the Court assuming such power. If the NRA's Board of Directors understood this, maybe they'd be a little more inspired to challenge all these unconstitutional anti-gun-rights laws we suffer under. These laws are detrimental to the security of our free state. Woody[/b] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA sits out gunfight with feds
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom