Thanks to the Supreme Court, Freeport TX to seize Land

[Ze Mad Doktor]

No, Gitmo is just a litmus test for the American public to see how they react. That way when they open a couple more and start sending Americans there people won't be as upset. Like I said, they take a couple inches at a time.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: cjgallen
The Supreme Court broke rule #1: Don't Mess With Texas :|

LOL...The Supreme Court of the United States Excluding The Republic of Texas.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Ze Mad Doktor
No, Gitmo is just a litmus test for the American public to see how they react. That way when they open a couple more and start sending Americans there people won't be as upset. Like I said, they take a couple inches at a time.

The Supreme Court DID allow this to happen to American Citizens.

The Japanese Internment Camps... during WWII...

The Supreme court ruled in favor of Franklin D. Roosevelt Executive Order 9066.

 

[AaronB]

Originally posted by: Ze Mad Doktor
No, Gitmo is just a litmus test for the American public to see how they react. That way when they open a couple more and start sending Americans there people won't be as upset. Like I said, they take a couple inches at a time.

Is this P&N? 😕

I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: AaronB

Originally posted by: Ze Mad Doktor
No, Gitmo is just a litmus test for the American public to see how they react. That way when they open a couple more and start sending Americans there people won't be as upset. Like I said, they take a couple inches at a time.

Is this P&N? 😕

I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Now, you did not take a wrong turn. This is not P&N. No flames, no name calling and no vitriol thrown. Just a discussion and exchange of ideas on a new law.

😉

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am disappointed, but not surprised. The only thing that can fix this is a Constitutional amendment, but I don't see a business controlled Congress doing that.

Not true, the majority stated in their opinion that state legislatures could put in amendments to their constitution to not allow it. In fact, this shouldn't even be handled at the federal level, it is a state issue.

An elephant can fly if you stick wings on it and shoot it out of an enormous cannon, but just about as likely to happen. There is going to have to be tremendous pressure on legislatures to give up this golden goose. I don't think the threat of losing a job is enough when compensation from a grateful company awaits after their resignation or defeat.

You may be right, but there are already Texas Senators discussing putting something on the books to limit cities abilities to take land for commercial purposes. But, the state legislature is also not in session, so give it a couple of months and it will probably fade from everyone's memory.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution. We have one side that cares about NOTHING but getting re-elected and the other side who cares about nothing but attacking the other side.

They all suck and it is a total free for all. We have judges who flat out say that they look to international law before our Constitution when deciding what she thinks is best for this country. If that is not a wake up call, i dont know what is.

Sometimes, I am glad that I am old enough that I will not see the total ruination of this country.
🙁

On the Federal level, there's Ron Paul. State wise, PA at least, I'm sure it's the same in the other 49, we have morons who like to give a lot of lip service.

You're right, it's a huge shame. I have no idea what Reagan was thinking when he nominated Kennedy. What a huge mistake that was. At least he got it right with Scalia and to a certain extent O'Connor. Bush better not fvck this up when he most likely will get a chance to nominate a SC Justice.

It won't be Bush that fs up the judges, it will be the dems who are already gearing up on pounding any Bush nominee. The millions that will be spent on the SC nominees will be similar to a presidential election.

If you look, you would see that the judges likely to be replaced are not the ones who voted against the majority. Bush's choices of nominees are irrelevant to this topic.

Reinquist voted against the majority and he will be the first that needs to be replaced.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Ze Mad Doktor
Yeah cuz they picked the wrong issue to do it with. They were right that they had the right to break away but they were wrong about slavery. It sucks that the issue of states rights hinged on slavery. If they wanted to break away over something the northerners didn't despise there wouldn't have been a shot fired.

No one cared about the slaves. Blacks were treated like animals on both sides, before and after the war. The war was all about money. Northern industries wanted domination in the South, Southern farmers wanted a free market. The Northern government applied a bunch of laws and tarriffs on the South to ensure profitablity in the North; the South seceded in retaliation. Lincoln declared slavery illegal to punish Southern landowners.

In today's PC times, people like saying that ending slavery justified the lives of 600,000 Americans because it makes them feel good. But that simply isn't true. The Civil War, like any other war, was fought over power and money. The abolishment of slavery, although being great, was only a side effect of the war.

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

-Karl Marx (who, btw, was a Lincoln supporter)

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Ze Mad Doktor
Yeah cuz they picked the wrong issue to do it with. They were right that they had the right to break away but they were wrong about slavery. It sucks that the issue of states rights hinged on slavery. If they wanted to break away over something the northerners didn't despise there wouldn't have been a shot fired.

No one cared about the slaves. Blacks were treated like animals on both sides, before and after the war. The war was all about money. Northern industries wanted domination in the South, Southern farmers wanted a free market. The Northern government applied a bunch of laws and tarriffs on the South to ensure profitablity in the North; the South seceded in retaliation. Lincoln declared slavery illegal to punish Southern landowners.

In today's PC times, people like saying that ending slavery justified the lives of 600,000 Americans because it makes them feel good. But that simply isn't true. The Civil War, like any other war, was fought over power and money. The abolishment of slavery, although being great, was only a side effect of the war.

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

-Karl Marx (who, btw, was a Lincoln supporter)

ummmm....the south seceded to protect slavery in the south and the new territories.

Northern industries didn't want domination of the south. They didn't want the money spent overseas rather than buying from the north. No different than tarrifs in place today.

The war was to save the Union. You will also find that Lincoln although making several anti-black? comments changed the way he viewed slavery well before the war. The abolition of slavery wasn't a new concept.

Without typing an extremely long post you can search for a thread with OrooOroo(sp?) and me (different user name then though) and you will learn a lot.

<--Proud southerner who believes in state's rights but there is no reason to perpetuate more bs.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

you can't impeach them just for not agreeing with their decisions

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with this. I think they all are. The constitution was meant to be interpreted based society at any given time. Even at its signing people had different ideas what certain portions of it really meant. The same is true today and the people you think are not looking at preserving the Constitution simply interpret it differently than you. It is easy to say that "one is worried about getting elected" and "the other is just looking to bash the other party" but it really just shows that we have reached another point where there is
a large divide in its interpretation. I would say that today it is hard to be "moderate".

I know you didn't say it but in the other thread it was said that the "founding fathers would be spinning in their graves". Yeah maybe a few but they would be having the same arguement we are having. Some for. Some against. Some of those founding fathers would also be spinning in their graves if they knew women and blacks could vote but at the same time left the option for future generations to change things.

As far as ruining the nation I'm not sure it can be done. Will it be what you or I want it to be? Probably not.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CPA


You may be right, but there are already Texas Senators discussing putting something on the books to limit cities abilities to take land for commercial purposes. But, the state legislature is also not in session, so give it a couple of months and it will probably fade from everyone's memory.

can we pester the governor's office for a special session if they ever get done figuring out a constitutional tax scheme?


should look into the methods of getting an amendment on the ballot...

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with this. I think they all are. The constitution was meant to be interpreted based society at any given time. Even at its signing people had different ideas what certain portions of it really meant. The same is true today and the people you think are not looking at preserving the Constitution simply interpret it differently than you. It is easy to say that "one is worried about getting elected" and "the other is just looking to bash the other party" but it really just shows that we have reached another point where there is
a large divide in its interpretation. I would say that today it is hard to be "moderate".

I know you didn't say it but in the other thread it was said that the "founding fathers would be spinning in their graves". Yeah maybe a few but they would be having the same arguement we are having. Some for. Some against. Some of those founding fathers would also be spinning in their graves if they knew women and blacks could vote but at the same time left the option for future generations to change things.

As far as ruining the nation I'm not sure it can be done. Will it be what you or I want it to be? Probably not.

The constitution was meant to be set in stone. It was supposed to be changable only under vert strict and certain terms. Only things that were not covered in the Constitution were open to sway with the times.

What you seem to be saying that is ... well, if we woke up tomorrow and society felt that a speedy trial was toovague or the right to an attorney was too expensive, then we can interpret that to mean we get to change it to what we want?

I don't think so. I think our founding fathers were looking to protect us and protect this country from ppl who thin that the Constitution is full of loop holes and open to intrepretation to make it say whatever they feel like it should say at any given moment.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with this. I think they all are. The constitution was meant to be interpreted based society at any given time. Even at its signing people had different ideas what certain portions of it really meant. The same is true today and the people you think are not looking at preserving the Constitution simply interpret it differently than you. It is easy to say that "one is worried about getting elected" and "the other is just looking to bash the other party" but it really just shows that we have reached another point where there is
a large divide in its interpretation. I would say that today it is hard to be "moderate".

I know you didn't say it but in the other thread it was said that the "founding fathers would be spinning in their graves". Yeah maybe a few but they would be having the same arguement we are having. Some for. Some against. Some of those founding fathers would also be spinning in their graves if they knew women and blacks could vote but at the same time left the option for future generations to change things.

As far as ruining the nation I'm not sure it can be done. Will it be what you or I want it to be? Probably not.

The constitution was meant to be set in stone. It was supposed to be changable only under vert strict and certain terms. Only things that were not covered in the Constitution were open to sway with the times.

What you seem to be saying that is ... well, if we woke up tomorrow and society felt that a speedy trial was toovague or the right to an attorney was too expensive, then we can interpret that to mean we get to change it to what we want?

I don't think so. I think our founding fathers were looking to protect us and protect this country from ppl who thin that the Constitution is full of loop holes and open to intrepretation to make it say whatever they feel like it should say at any given moment.

Not in the mood to argue but I think you should do a little research on the founding fathers. Also why do you think the SC exist?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
Not in the mood to argue but I think you should do a little research on the founding fathers. Also why do you think the SC exist?

the supreme court wasn't given the function it has since taken in the document itself. the supreme court gave itself the power of judicial review. read up on marshall and jefferson. marshall really snuck that one by him.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution.

Not true, look into the Constitutional or Libertarian party....we are looking for smart people who don't blindly follow the Socialist or Christian fanatic party....

 

[MikeMike]

call up your local congressman/senator whatever, make SURE they pass a law w/in your own state disregarding this/making it illegal that would be the best step i would say.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
Not in the mood to argue but I think you should do a little research on the founding fathers. Also why do you think the SC exist?

the supreme court wasn't given the function it has since taken in the document itself. the supreme court gave itself the power of judicial review. read up on marshall and jefferson. marshall really snuck that one by him.

I'm aware of the origins of judicial review however it was at a time when each branch was figuring out their individual powers/ places.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

you can't impeach them just for not agreeing with their decisions

They ignored the Constitution... the supposed "Law of the Land".

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with this. I think they all are. The constitution was meant to be interpreted based society at any given time. Even at its signing people had different ideas what certain portions of it really meant. The same is true today and the people you think are not looking at preserving the Constitution simply interpret it differently than you. It is easy to say that "one is worried about getting elected" and "the other is just looking to bash the other party" but it really just shows that we have reached another point where there is
a large divide in its interpretation. I would say that today it is hard to be "moderate".

I know you didn't say it but in the other thread it was said that the "founding fathers would be spinning in their graves". Yeah maybe a few but they would be having the same arguement we are having. Some for. Some against. Some of those founding fathers would also be spinning in their graves if they knew women and blacks could vote but at the same time left the option for future generations to change things.

As far as ruining the nation I'm not sure it can be done. Will it be what you or I want it to be? Probably not.

The constitution was meant to be set in stone. It was supposed to be changable only under vert strict and certain terms. Only things that were not covered in the Constitution were open to sway with the times.

What you seem to be saying that is ... well, if we woke up tomorrow and society felt that a speedy trial was toovague or the right to an attorney was too expensive, then we can interpret that to mean we get to change it to what we want?

I don't think so. I think our founding fathers were looking to protect us and protect this country from ppl who thin that the Constitution is full of loop holes and open to intrepretation to make it say whatever they feel like it should say at any given moment.

Wrong. the constitution was not meant to set in stone. the founding fathers gave us conditions specifically outlined in the constitution where we could change it, because they knew times would dictate that certain anmendments would need to be added.

I do firmly belive that they did not want ED to be used by the government to seize a citizens land to be given to another private citizen because it would raise the areas tax revenue. this is exactly what we were fighting the Brits about, freedon from tyrnary.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Wrong. the constitution was not meant to set in stone. the founding fathers gave us conditions specifically outlined in the constitution where we could change it, because they knew times would dictate that certain anmendments would need to be added.

I do firmly belive that they did not want ED to be used by the government to seize a citizens land to be given to another private citizen because it would raise the areas tax revenue. this is exactly what we were fighting the Brits about, freedon from tyrnary.

But the Amendment process is set up in a way so that the Constitution could not be changed by the whim of the people.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

you can't impeach them just for not agreeing with their decisions

They ignored the Constitution... the supposed "Law of the Land".

there's no precedent for it. i think the closest anyone came was before the civil war, probably during the jefferson time period when the anti federalists didn't like the federalist judges. rehnquist's book on the supreme court gave a lot of those backstories.

 

[dmcowen674]

Topic Title: Thanks to the Supreme Court, Freeport TX to seize Land

😎 Cool, I hope everybody that supports this loses their land :thumbsup:

Awwwww let's all cry for the dumb American Sheeple. :roll:

Wake up and stop voting for idiots.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Topic Title: Thanks to the Supreme Court, Freeport TX to seize Land

😎 Cool, I hope everybody that supports this loses their land :thumbsup:

Awwwww let's all cry for the dumb American Sheeple. :roll:

Wake up and stop voting for idiots.

Well, they didn't vote for the supreme court, and many were nominated by some presidents that not everyone considered an idiot.

I'm not entirely opposed to eminent domain in some circumstances, and the supreme court noted that it can have a valuable purpose for economic reasons, altho their explanation is going to be useless, because its 200% ripe for abuse. :frown:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Topic Title: Thanks to the Supreme Court, Freeport TX to seize Land

😎 Cool, I hope everybody that supports this loses their land :thumbsup:

Awwwww let's all cry for the dumb American Sheeple. :roll:

Wake up and stop voting for idiots.

Well, they didn't vote for the supreme court, and many were nominated by some presidents that not everyone considered an idiot.

I'm not entirely opposed to eminent domain in some circumstances, and the supreme court noted that it can have a valuable purpose for economic reasons, altho their explanation is going to be useless, because its 200% ripe for abuse. :frown:

The ones doing the abuse are the ones that the sheeple voted for.