Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Funny.. there is a reason Ron Paul has never been and will never be a threat to sit in the White House... Some of us see through him for what he really is.

That reason may indeed exist but I think it is at least partially the fault of the voters that Paul isn't being given a shot. Not many American's want to risk having someone fiscally conservative going into office and slashing programs that should never have been instituted in the first place. I think that a lot of American's really do want the government to take care of use from the cradle to grave and the prospect of that possibly going away is just too much.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Oh good Jebus you are kidding right. It doesn't matter how you want to interpret it, or how you read it.. the Exceptions clause or nothing in the Constitution Gives Congress the power to Strip the Supreme Court of their powers for the purpose of over turning previous rulings.

It gives the power to limit what courts can hear. No one is saying that overturns rulings. It's obvious you can do this. It is therefore not unconstitutional if Ron Paul were to succeed.

Asking for Ear Marks is one thing... Asking for Ear marks and then voting no to your own Proposal is shady.

Only because you're a XXXXX. It's fairly obvious why Paul's position is the only logical one. You haven't refuted this...you merely say "it is shady". I realize you're a bigot but at least try to put some thought into what you post.

Originally Posted by AMD4EVER

That reason may indeed exist but I think it is at least partially the fault of the voters that Paul isn't being given a shot. Not many American's want to risk having someone fiscally conservative going into office and slashing programs that should never have been instituted in the first place. I think that a lot of American's really do want the government to take care of use from the cradle to grave and the prospect of that possibly going away is just too much.

Voters don't Give him a chance but because they realize the danger of electing a person who thinks the way Ron Paul thinks. Yeah it makes for good talking points and helps him gain " some" support when he gets up on a stage and says he wants to Eliminate the EPA, The Department of Education, Social Security, The Federal Reserve, And the many, many Government offices he thinks should not exist. But even Ron Paul has no explanation for what would happen if these things were ever accomplished. He just throws out the Idea, " Eliminate Social Security".. and tells you it's unconstitutional, yet he has no alternative for the millions of people who have paid into Social security and rely on their benefits. As President he would basically serve as a Lame Duck, because not even a republican House and Senate would agree to the things he wants to do.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

It gives the power to limit what courts can hear. No one is saying that overturns rulings. It's obvious you can do this. It is therefore not unconstitutional if Ron Paul were to succeed.

You're in part correct but you are forgetting one thing, apparently the same thing that Ron Paul isn't thinking of. Just like Congress The Supreme Court has Enumerated Powers given them by the Constitution. One of those ENUMERATED Powers is to Hear "ALL cases Arising under the Constitution. Yeah Congress can give them or take away their authority to hear Certain types of cases.. but where CONSTITUTIONAL matters are concerned they cannot.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Only because you're a XXXXX. It's fairly obvious why Paul's position is the only logical one. You haven't refuted this...you merely say "it is shady". I realize you're a bigot but at least try to put some thought into what you post.

No I never said it wasn't the logical course to take, but that further proves my point that Ron Paul is not unlike any other politician in Washington. He's the one going around the country claiming to be something he is not. He has said many, MANY times , I've heard it myself, that he is against Earmarks. He believes that the Government shouldn't be handing out such earmarks because it is wasteful spending... but then he goes out of his way to rake in his " Fair" share of earmarked money, while maintaining that he votes no to all ear marks... That's not a politician standing on his principles , that's another politician using the system and lying to Voters.

I'm pretty sure if he went to his district and told them " Look, you guys are on your own, I as a Representative of Congress just can't take Government handouts, so your theater will have to raise the money themselves... " he would be voted out . Logical or not, he's just another shady politician with bad Ideas.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

You're in part correct but you are forgetting one thing, apparently the same thing that Ron Paul isn't thinking of. Just like Congress The Supreme Court has Enumerated Powers given them by the Constitution. One of those ENUMERATED Powers is to Hear "ALL cases Arising under the Constitution. Yeah Congress can give them or take away their authority to hear Certain types of cases.. but where CONSTITUTIONAL matters are concerned they cannot.

You misread that clause which says "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made". Congress can limit what the federal courts hear whether the case arises under the constitution, laws of the united states, or treaties. If you were correct the two passages would contradict each other. As it stands, this clause merely states initially what the federal courts can hear...congress can further limit that per the exceptions clause.

It's in the Federalist Papers if you need further explanation.

No I never said it wasn't the logical course to take, but that further proves my point that Ron Paul is not unlike any other politician in Washington.

I think being honest is unlike any other politician in Washington.

He's the one going around the country claiming to be something he is not. He has said many, MANY times , I've heard it myself, that he is against Earmarks. He believes that the Government shouldn't be handing out such earmarks because it is wasteful spending... but then he goes out of his way to rake in his " Fair" share of earmarked money, while maintaining that he votes no to all ear marks... That's not a politician standing on his principles , that's another politician using the system and lying to Voters.

That is very much standing on his principles. He votes against it every time. Like in my example, just because you are against something doesn't mean you can't make a decision on it should it arise. Many Governors are against the death penalty but they still have to decide issues relating to stays of execution.

You confuse two different things and call it a contradiction. It's simply not true.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You misread that clause which says "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made". Congress can limit what the federal courts hear whether the case arises under the constitution, laws of the united states, or treaties. If you were correct the two passages would contradict each other. As it stands, this clause merely states initially what the federal courts can hear...congress can further limit that per the exceptions clause.

It's in the Federalist Papers if you need further explanation.

I didn't misread anything. Congress does not have the power to strip the Judicial Branch of Adjudicating on Constitutional issues. If that were the case the Congress would hold more Power than both the Judicial branch and the executive branch. I've read the Federalist papers concerning this, nothing in there gives Congress the power to strip Enumerated Powers from the Court. They can the lower Federal courts,, but the Supreme Court no..... Look it up.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I think being honest is unlike any other politician in Washington.

Yeah Honesty would be unlike any politician in Washington... Including Ron Paul... He's Lies like the rest of them.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

That is very much standing on his principles. He votes against it every time. Like in my example, just because you are against something doesn't mean you can't make a decision on it should it arise. Many Governors are against the death penalty but they still have to decide issues relating to stays of execution.

You confuse two different things and call it a contradiction. It's simply not true.

I don't see it that way. If you claim you are against Government Spending then stand up for no Government spending, regardless of what may happen.
If he votes no to Obama spending money on Hurricane Aide then he has stood for his principle of no spending. If he Proposes a 100,000 dollar earmark for his district and then votes against his own Earmark he is playing political games. If he really believed in eliminating Earmarks he wouldn't propose them in the first place. He's using the system, lying to his voters, and that puts him into the " just another Politician" category...

Only good thing about it is that we both know he will never be President, so I guess it doesn't really matter if he rakes in a few bucks for his State.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

I didn't misread anything. Congress does not have the power to strip the Judicial Branch of Adjudicating on Constitutional issues.

Yeah they do.

If that were the case the Congress would hold more Power than both the Judicial branch and the executive branch.

Which is exactly how it was supposed to be. The Federalist papers spell that out directly. They want the legislative branch to be the most powerful of the three.

I've read the Federalist papers concerning this, nothing in there gives Congress the power to strip Enumerated Powers from the Court. They can the lower Federal courts,, but the Supreme Court no..... Look it up.

This isn't even debatable. The constitution says: "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Constitutional questions can fall under either appellate or original jurisdiction when they come to the Supreme Court (obviously). Congress can't limit original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court which is fairly limited and wouldn't involve anything in question with what Ron Paul is talking about.

You are trying to remove the meaning of the clause for some reason. You're wrong.

I don't see it that way. If you claim you are against Government Spending then stand up for no Government spending, regardless of what may happen.

He did. He voted against the spending. He never said he was against allocating money that WILL be spent.

If he votes no to Obama spending money on Hurricane Aide then he has stood for his principle of no spending. If he Proposes a 100,000 dollar earmark for his district and then votes against his own Earmark he is playing political games.

You are being illogical. It isn't a political game...it's called logic. If you are a forced to spend money you can decide the outcome of where it is spent without being a hypocrite. You can't seem to come up with an argument against that.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Yeah they do.

Nope.. you are wrong...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Which is exactly how it was supposed to be. The Federalist papers spell that out directly. They want the legislative branch to be the most powerful of the three.

The Constitution provides a host of checks and balances to give all three branches relatively equal power. The Legislative branch makes the Laws, the Executive branch Enforces the Laws and the Judicial branch assures the Laws are within the boundaries of the Constitution...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

This isn't even debatable. The constitution says: "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Well I see where you went wrong.. You didn't read it right. The Constitution says... and I quote...

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Nothing In there says anything about Congress, or limits the Supreme Court to only a few cases. It says "ALL CASES OF LAW AND EQUITY THAT SHALL ARISE UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION... You're wrong again..

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Constitutional questions can fall under either appellate or original jurisdiction when they come to the Supreme Court (obviously). Congress can't limit original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court which is fairly limited and wouldn't involve anything in question with what Ron Paul is talking about.

Finally you admit it.. Congress can't limit Original Jurisdiction.. Which is what The Supreme Court has concerning the Constitution....

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You are trying to remove the meaning of the clause for some reason. You're wrong.

I'm not removing anything, you are misinterpreting the clause to fit your right wing rhetoric...

yeah I know.. I'm a bigot... figured I'd get that one out of the way....

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

He did. He voted against the spending. He never said he was against allocating money that WILL be spent.

lol.. yeah He never said he was against spending.. You just don't want to admit you're wrong about the man, he's a hypocritical politician, just like most of them are...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You are being illogical. It isn't a political game...it's called logic. If you are a forced to spend money you can decide the outcome of where it is spent without being a hypocrite. You can't seem to come up with an argument against that.

And again I say I never said it wasn't logical.. but taking the logical course isn't always the right thing to do now is it. If he says he doesn't like earmarks he should stand up for his belief and refuse to have anything to do with earmarks. He could refuse to accept the money ... That would be called " leading by Example" but since he's no leader and just like all the other politicians I guess we can't expect him to actually be what he claims to be.....

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

If he says he doesn't like earmarks he should stand up for his belief and refuse to have anything to do with earmarks. ...

Ron Paul does like earmarks, what he doesn't like is spending. He acts in accordance with this belief and states it. There is nothing shady about stating your beliefs in a logical way and then consistently acting in accordance with those beliefs.

You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. But the principle of earmarking is something that we have to think about because we’re just further undermining the responsibilities that we have here in the Congress. And if we want to get things under control it won’t be because we vote against an earmark and make a big deal of attacking earmarks because it doesn’t address the subject.

In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum”. We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

The Constitution provides a host of checks and balances to give all three branches relatively equal power. The Legislative branch makes the Laws, the Executive branch Enforces the Laws and the Judicial branch assures the Laws are within the boundaries of the Constitution...

Ha, it's obviously you only have a 5th grade understanding of our constitution. That's cute.

The legislative branch is the most powerful. Read Federalist 51. Furthermore, Federalist 78 states the judiciary is the weakest.

"It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power" ~ Federalist 78

Of course in reality we found out that Hamilton was wrong (about what would happen) but that's not what the constitution provided for.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Nothing In there says anything about Congress, or limits the Supreme Court to only a few cases. It says "ALL CASES OF LAW AND EQUITY THAT SHALL ARISE UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION.

Ummm, my quote was from the constitution. What exactly do you think that phrase means? Congress can limit appellate jurisdiction which is what we are talking about here. See below.

Finally you admit it.. Congress can't limit Original Jurisdiction.. Which is what The Supreme Court has concerning the Constitution....

No they don't, retard. The Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction "(i)n all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,". Those may or may not involve constitutional questions. In the case of abortion, it certainly doesn't.

Tell me what you think the exceptions clause means. You are avoiding the issue.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Ummm, my quote was from the constitution. What exactly do you think that phrase means? Congress can limit appellate jurisdiction which is what we are talking about here. See below.

Man you are thick... I know we are talking about Appellate Jurisdiction, that is mainly what the Supreme Court is.

You have to look further into it than the fact it goes against your personal view , like Ron Paul you simply seem to be confused.

The Constitution set up a Supreme Court and Congress has the Authority to Create Lower Courts. All Courts set up by Congress fall under Federal Courts and the list of Enumerated Powers applies Original Jurisdiction to the Lower Courts with the Supreme Court Holding Appellate Jurisdiction over those same cases. The Exceptions Clause is a specific List of Cases which Gives The Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction.

Now.. First you have to understand what Appellate Jurisdiction means..
Appellate jurisdiction is the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts.

So the Supreme Court may not Hear the Original Case but they have the Appellate Jurisdiction, so If there is an Appeal it then goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the Authority to Overturn, change, amend, or throw out decisions of the Lower Federal Courts.

Continued below.....

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

No they don't, retard. The Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction "(i)n all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,". Those may or may not involve constitutional questions. In the case of abortion, it certainly doesn't.

Well this is a double edged sword.. For instance the case of Roe vs. Wade involved a Woman who sued a State.. The State Of Texas.. So a State was a Party to the case, which should have been under Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court...

However it wasn't. The Suit was filed in District Court and when the District Court ruled in Favor of ( ROE) , Wade Appealed the case to the Supreme Court who then Ruled . The Supreme Court was within their Jurisdiction.

In other words the Exceptions clause doesn't exclude the Supreme Court from reviewing Cases and making rulings overturning lower courts. All the Exceptions clause means is that In Certain Cases the Supreme Court cannot hear the original trial. If The Lower Federal Court would have ruled in favor of Wade the Case may have never been appealed to the Supreme Court at all. But the case was appealed and the Supreme Court is still the Highest Court in the Land. They decided as did the Lower Court that Barring a woman from having an Abortion was unconstitutional .

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Tell me what you think the exceptions clause means. You are avoiding the issue.

I'm not avoiding the subject.. I've explained it to you .

The Supreme Court either has Original Jurisdiction or Appellate Jurisdiction, Most of the Cases they hear are Appeals. They Rarely Hear a case where they have Original Jurisdiction. The only thing Congress can limit is which cases are appellate and which are original, but the Constitution is quiet clear that the Supreme Court has Jurisdiction over ALL cases under our Constitution as well as the Laws of the United States. Their main purpose is to defend and uphold the Constitution.

What Ron Paul wants to do is Take away the Supreme Courts ability to hear cases involving the Constitution... which is kind of hard to do considering the Supreme Court has Jurisdiction over ALL cases, whether it be Appellate or original they are within their enumerated powers.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Ha, it's obviously you only have a 5th grade understanding of our constitution. That's cute.

The legislative branch is the most powerful. Read Federalist 51. Furthermore, Federalist 78 states the judiciary is the weakest.

"It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power" ~ Federalist 78

Of course in reality we found out that Hamilton was wrong (about what would happen) but that's not what the constitution provided for.

No it didn't happen exactly as the founders intended.. that doesn't mean we should go back to the beginning and start over...

Originally Posted by Symbiote

Ron Paul does like earmarks, what he doesn't like is spending. He acts in accordance with this belief and states it. There is nothing shady about stating your beliefs in a logical way and then consistently acting in accordance with those beliefs.

You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. But the principle of earmarking is something that we have to think about because we’re just further undermining the responsibilities that we have here in the Congress. And if we want to get things under control it won’t be because we vote against an earmark and make a big deal of attacking earmarks because it doesn’t address the subject.

In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum”. We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better.

If he is so against the spending then why does he continue to propose earmarked spending for his district and then voting no to his own Earmark... because he's a hypocrite .