Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

reply to post by kawika


There's NO supreme court decision to back up this lunacy.

As we saw the subpoenas were total BS and again the birther blogs lied about the basic facts.

How many times you gonna post birther lies?

Originally posted by kawika

Just like on ATS...

I explained to him that it was not the place of birth of the presidents’ fathers that was the issue, but rather the status of their citizenship at the time of their sons’ births. The reporter scoffed and told me that that was just my opinion, but when I attempted to inform him that it was also the opinion of the Supreme Court, he turned and walked away from me while I was in mid-sentence.

Lmao it's just like it

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

The constitution is our core beliefs, as a nation.

The Constitution is a framework.

The law of the land is the Supreme Court.

People love to use the Constitution when it works in their favor.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

The constitution is our core beliefs, as a nation.

The Constitution is a framework.

The law of the land is the Supreme Court.

People love to use the Constitution when it works in their favor.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

You can pull out whatever you want.

The Constitution is still a framework and the law is the interpretation by the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

The constitution is our core beliefs, as a nation.

The Constitution is a framework.

The law of the land is the Supreme Court.

People love to use the Constitution when it works in their favor.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

You can pull out whatever you want.

The Constitution is still a framework and the law is the interpretation by the Supreme Court.

It's the supreme law of the land.

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

The constitution is our core beliefs, as a nation.

The Constitution is a framework.

The law of the land is the Supreme Court.

People love to use the Constitution when it works in their favor.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

You can pull out whatever you want.

The Constitution is still a framework and the law is the interpretation by the Supreme Court.

It's the supreme law of the land.

NO - its not.

Laws have to be interpreted. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution as it is applied.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

The constitution is our core beliefs, as a nation.

The Constitution is a framework.

The law of the land is the Supreme Court.

People love to use the Constitution when it works in their favor.

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

You can pull out whatever you want.

The Constitution is still a framework and the law is the interpretation by the Supreme Court.

It's the supreme law of the land.

NO - its not.

Laws have to be interpreted. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution as it is applied.

You're right, it's not. It just says it is, that's all.

No. It is.

It's important that it is, otherwise government has a tendency to get out of control.

Originally posted by IndieA
No. It is.

It's important that it is, otherwise government has a tendency to get out of control.

It is a framework. Laws must be interpreted.

The Supreme court is the law - - because it interprets the Constitution.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IndieA
No. It is.

It's important that it is, otherwise government has a tendency to get out of control.

It is a framework. Laws must be interpreted.

The Supreme court is the law - - because it interprets the Constitution.

I think that you're both correct. The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land, AND from time to time the Supreme Court has to interpret that supreme law. It's the Supreme Court's duty to make sure that any current law does not directly conflict with the supreme law of the Constitution.

even if he did rule him ineligible, the Khazar/ illuminati government will just rig the elections like they did with bush giving him hundreds of votes in the machines before the polls start. the NWO is really in every facet of the government. Best thing to do is not to believe them and all vote for one candidate, perhaps the one that doesn't want to make us inch closer to world war and keep us perpetually poor.

This Topic Page concerns the Government. The Constitution of the United States provides a basic framework for the government of the United States. www.usconstitution.net...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IndieA
No. It is.

It's important that it is, otherwise government has a tendency to get out of control.

It is a framework. Laws must be interpreted.

The Supreme court is the law - - because it interprets the Constitution.

the three branches of government balance each other, no branch is absolute. No where in the constitution does it say the supreme court is the law. That would be asinine and impossible since the congress creates laws. You cant even say the supreme court is semantically the law since they must first interpret the law which means the law has to exist before they can do anything. To say the supreme court is the law flies in the face of everything the constitution stands for, it would be as bad as claiming the constitution makes the president a king and is the law. Your interpretation of the supreme court as the law because they have final interpretation of law shows just how confused you are when it comes to constitutional law. Not only have you eliminated the concept of a balance of powers but you also declare one branch to be the supreme dictator over the others. This coming not from a citation of the constitution but rather an unsupported and ficticious claim. So in other words you are wrong.

Originally posted by Annee

This Topic Page concerns the Government. The Constitution of the United States provides a basic framework for the government of the United States. www.usconstitution.net...

Well, maybe we could call it the "supreme" framework, as the Supreme Court will use no other framework for their interpretations.

reply to post by filosophia


QUESTION: when there are questions of "the law" Constitution.

Who determines/interprets "the law" as correct determination/interpretation?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Annee

This Topic Page concerns the Government. The Constitution of the United States provides a basic framework for the government of the United States. www.usconstitution.net...

Well, maybe we could call it the "supreme" framework, as the Supreme Court will use no other framework for their interpretations.

Thank you.

Ya know - - if it was truly "written in stone" there would not be amendments. Logic is Logic.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by filosophia

 

QUESTION: when there are questions of "the law" Constitution.

Who determines/interprets "the law" as correct determination/interpretation?

edit on 30-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

The constitution is rather straight forward and does not need a priest class to interpret for the mere mortals. Only because of the run away big government do people twist the words to mean something which it doesnt, like giving rights to the federal government or corporations rather than individuals. For all other purposes:

tenth amendment :

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

Originally posted by filosophia

The constitution is rather straight forward and does not need a priest class to interpret for the mere mortals.

What????????????????????

All laws need (require) interpretation. That's what lawyers are for.

If laws were "set in stone" - - we'd have a whole lot of pissed off and out of work lawyers.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by filosophia

 

QUESTION: when there are questions of "the law" Constitution.

Who determines/interprets "the law" as correct determination/interpretation?

edit on 30-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

The constitution is rather straight forward and does not need a priest class to interpret for the mere mortals. Only because of the run away big government do people twist the words to mean something which it doesnt, like giving rights to the federal government or corporations rather than individuals. For all other purposes:

tenth amendment :

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

And who wrote the words for the tenth amendment to the Constitution? Who was responsible for getting it added?

reply to post by Annee


Not all laws need interpretation. For example if a law says you have 30 days to do something there’s no need for interpretation. Courts are only need to interpret the law when it is required. Courts are not the laws.

The Constitution is the law. A law is a statement usually in writing.

The Supreme Court is a Court. Not the law.

Again.
court = court
laws = laws