It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Hoax title, Hoax article, that greatly stretches the truth. Someone put this in the hoax bin already!
Breitbart is the same idiot that used an edited video to paint that black woman from the USDA as a racist. This guy is turning into a crackpot.
Lot's to find wrong with the government, but it only serves to distract when you have to judge articles like this based on someones deluded histrionics.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The United States Constitution ceased being a legal valid document and doctrine in 1861 when the last lawfully sat congress disbanded.
Originally posted by Rocky Black
This is why in the next Presidential election I will cast my vote for Mitt Romney. The only honest person I know. I would not even rank him as a politician as to me it is such a dirty word to be associated with.
Romney raised the most money from Wall Street of all presidential candidates during the first quarter, with $1.9 million raised
The Bush family is now the incumbent leaders of the Illuminati Seers and George H Bush today announced the Illuminati’s endorsement of Mitt Romney.
the genealogical information I assembled on the Mormon leaders is given. This was included in the Be Wise As Serpents book to give people an idea of how the Mormon leadership ties back in with the leading occult bloodlines of the Merovingian dynasty
Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Originally posted by muzzleflash
So they made a petition "Stop being criminals plz!" and they reply "Denied!"?
Yeah well, I'm not surprised.
American People:But The US constitution doesn't allow...
Fascist Globalist: We are the constitution slave. We make the truth. We write your laws. We own you now cattle! Suck it up!
Same old fascism Different story.
..."In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed."
No. 10-411 Title: William M. Windsor, Petitioner v. Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al. Docketed: September 24, 2010 Linked with 10A98 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Case Nos.: (09-14735) Decision Date: February 25, 2010 Rehearing Denied: April 26, 2010 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jul 21 2010 Application (10A98) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 25, 2010 to September 8, 2010, submitted to Justice Thomas. Jul 27 2010 Application (10A98) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 8, 2010. Aug 25 2010 Application (10A98) to extend further the time from September 8, 2010 to September 23, 2010, submitted to Justice Thomas. Sep 2 2010 Application (10A98) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 23, 2010. Sep 23 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 25, 2010) Sep 23 2010 Appendix of William M. Windsor filed. Oct 15 2010 Application (10A404) for a stay pending dispostition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Thomas. Oct 19 2010 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 4, 2010. Oct 22 2010 Application (10A404) denied by Justice Thomas. Oct 27 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al. to respond filed. Nov 1 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010. Nov 18 2010 Supplemental brief of petitioner William M. Windsor filed. (Distributed) Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED. Dec 23 2010 Petition for Rehearing filed. Jan 5 2011 Application (10A690) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas. Jan 12 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 18, 2011. Jan 13 2011 Application (10A690) denied by Justice Thomas.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.
During the first two administrations, President George Washington and President John Adams appointed only Federalist Party members to administration and judiciary positions. When Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election, President Adams, a Federalist, proceeded to rapidly fill the judiciary bench with members of his own party, who would serve for life during "good behavior." In response, Jeffersonian Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created several new judgeships and circuit courts with Federalist judges, and threatened impeachment if the Supreme Court overturned the repeal statute.
Although President Adams attempted to fill the vacancies prior to the end of his term, he had not delivered a number of commissions. Thus, when Jefferson became President, he refused to honor the last-minute appointments of President John Adams. As a result, William Marbury, one of those appointees, sued James Madison, the new Secretary of State, and asked the Supreme Court to order the delivery of his commission as a justice of the peace.
The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus (i.e., an order to force Madison to deliver the commission), the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law. Instead, Marshall found a common ground where the Court could chastise the Jeffersonians for their actions while enhancing the Supreme Court's power. His decision in this case has often been hailed as a judicial tour de force.
Basically, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury; however, he ruled that the Court lacked the power to issue writs of mandamus. While a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, the Court ruled that this exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution and was therefore null and void. So, while the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. As a result of this court ruling, the Supreme Court became an equal partner in the government.