It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Schumer Confesses to Not Understanding Constitution

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
"United States Senator “Chuck” Schumer’s broke his own stupidity record the other day following President Bush’s announcement of John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.

In a tag-team appearance with Senator Pat Leahy (D. Vt.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Schumer confessed to the Nation that neither he, Leahy, nor the Democrat party for whom he spoke, understands a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism: separation of powers. Indeed, ever since Schumer confessed, his echo has been heard as Democrat functionaries (e.g., Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Pelosi) have made the same confession that they, too, do not understand one of the three basic pillars upon which our Republic stands."

www.frontpagemag.com...

Is it actually "ignorance" or simple a ploy to mislead the sheep on the left of the isle. More likely such ignorance is a carefully planned and execyted attack on out republic not unlike russia in the early 1900's. A time when less than 10% of the country (all elite's) plunged a once great nation into the black abyss of communisum. A black death the world almost didn't survive and in fact millions of victims of Stalin didn't survive.

Do not let these control freaks lie to you anymore.




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bush43
Do not let these control freaks lie to you anymore.


Right. Let the authoritarians save you from the control freaks. They never lie. They just never answer any questions.

Sorry if some people are simply curious if Bush is slipping an activist on the bench to legistate the agenda that makes Pat Robertson (not America) so giddy. Inquiring minds and all that. I guess your control freaks know best.

After all, if Robert's isn't rubber stamped without so much as an humble inquiry, we'll all turn communist. Yeah, watch out for those lying control freaks alright. Brilliant analysis.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Bush43
Do not let these control freaks lie to you anymore.


After all, if Robert's isn't rubber stamped without so much as an humble inquiry, we'll all turn communist. Yeah, watch out for those lying control freaks alright. Brilliant analysis.


Thank you for your vote of confidence in my brilliant analysis.


Schumer and the other gang of vile idiots on the left have screwed the country for long enough. Time for them to shut up and sit down. They lost the election.

The single greatest conspiracy of all time has been the liberal democatic party.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Well said Rant!! I totally agree.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Bush43
Do not let these control freaks lie to you anymore.


Right. Let the authoritarians save you from the control freaks. They never lie. They just never answer any questions.

Sorry if some people are simply curious if Bush is slipping an activist on the bench to legistate the agenda that makes Pat Robertson (not America) so giddy. Inquiring minds and all that. I guess your control freaks know best.

After all, if Robert's isn't rubber stamped without so much as an humble inquiry, we'll all turn communist. Yeah, watch out for those lying control freaks alright. Brilliant analysis.


In what way is Roberts an Activist!?! Sure, he's slimy lawyer, but really, when you get to this level of government, who isn't?

Frankly, I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, when it come to being a Supreme Court Justice. A Supreme Court Justice's duty is to interpret the Constitution. Period...end of story...You can be gay, straight, republican, conservative, satanist, or catholic. That is not important. What IS important is your knowledge and intelligence.

The problem is that the conservatives have taken to the idea of getting a "pro life" candidate on the court. What they need to find is a strict interpretist to put on the court. If Roe v. Wade is good law, then it'll stand, if not, it'll fall, and something else will replace it.

The Dems really have a problem if they oppose Roberts too harshly. He was passed unanimously by the senate by oral vote only two years ago for the D.C. Circuit Court.

BTW, if you want to see how intelligent all of our elected officials are, on both sides, check out this site.

home.comcast.net...

Oxymoron of the year - "Conservative Activist"


[edit on 7/29/2005 by soulforge]

[edit on 7/29/2005 by soulforge]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

The Constitution of the US is the law of the land.

It is the SC job to see if laws are Constitutional.


This very flaw idea that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution is the attempt by the socialist/ communist to take over the US.

Roper



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

The Constitution of the US is the law of the land.

It is the SC job to see if laws are Constitutional.


This very flaw idea that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution is the attempt by the socialist/ communist to take over the US.

Roper


Sorry, it is not the job of the "supremes" to rule on constitutionality. That was "taken" in 1803 in Marby v Madison and jefferson went to his grave screaming over the power grab. Read Article III carefully. The SC has been out of control for 202 years..............



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I'm sorry, perhaps I can explain better.

You both are right. It's not their job to interpret the constitution. It is their job to decide if a law or ruling is constitutional. They are interrelated, but so often they do more of the first and less of the second.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
I'm sorry, perhaps I can explain better.

You both are right. It's not their job to interpret the constitution. It is their job to decide if a law or ruling is constitutional. They are interrelated, but so often they do more of the first and less of the second.


Again, where in Article 3 does it grant the court the right of review? It is an assumed power directy from itself in Marby v Madison in 1803.

They do not have the consitutional power to overrule the congress or president. They are NOT a so called 3 branch and never have been. That is all a myth.................



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Bush, your 'source' is obviously a partisan opinion piece. Do you happen to have a quote of what the Senator actually said? I mean, did he say, "neither I, Leahy, nor the Democrat party for whom I speak, understands a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism: separation of powers."?

Or did he say something else that your 'source' interprets as that?

This is obviously an opinion of someone playing politics. I'd like to hear what Schumer said and make my own judgment.

Not saying I disagree, but I'm not in the habit of just accepting others opinions. I like to form my own.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I get sick of these "oh that's a conservative site so it's not valid", "oh that's a liberal site so it's not valid" things...If you disagree with the premise, do the footwork to find a contrarian view, don't dismiss it out of hand...



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
I get sick of these "oh that's a conservative site so it's not valid", "oh that's a liberal site so it's not valid" things...If you disagree with the premise, do the footwork to find a contrarian view, don't dismiss it out of hand...

I said no such thing. I don't even know the source, so I hadn't made that conclusion. I was looking for what the man said, not what someone thought of what he said.

I did look for a quote from Schumer or even the stroy these guys are talking about, and I can't find it. All I found were more sites similar to what Bush43 already posted. I asked for a source instead of opinion. I think that's valid.

BTW, I get sick of the "oh that's a conservative site so it's not valid", "oh that's a liberal site so it's not valid" things, too.


All I'm asking for is a quote so I can make my own judgment. If there is no source of what the man said, then I will dismiss it as just another opinion.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bush43

Originally posted by Roper
It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

The Constitution of the US is the law of the land.

It is the SC job to see if laws are Constitutional.


This very flaw idea that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution is the attempt by the socialist/ communist to take over the US.

Roper


Sorry, it is not the job of the "supremes" to rule on constitutionality. That was "taken" in 1803 in Marby v Madison and jefferson went to his grave screaming over the power grab. Read Article III carefully. The SC has been out of control for 202 years..............


Hrm... You blame senators for not understanding the constitution, yet you question the principal of judicial review? This has been good law for, as you say, the past 200 years.

You blame senators for not understanding the concept of separation of powers, yet you refuse to accept one of the principal landmarks in American history establishing the same concept?

You tell the left wingers to "shut up and sit down," and yet here you are whining over the single most firmly established case in US legal history!

Extreme right-wing logic singularity alert!

You can't have your cake and eat it, too!


-koji K.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Hilarious stuff. Schummy was a guest speaker at my college graduation a few months back and we all heckled him and passed around huge beach balls knowing everything he was saying was FUBAR.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
RebelSaint, what college was that?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Binghamton University Class of '05




top topics



 
0

log in

join