|
Posted by Edgar on June 14, 2007, 2:00 pm
--
Edgar
> WASHINGTON - In a surprise decision bound to become a landmark case of the
> 21st century, the Supreme Court today ruled, eight-to-one, against the
> Constitution. In Bush v. Constitution, the issue before the court was,
> "whether the Constitution's antiquated espousal of 'liberty' and 'checks
> and balances' should definitively establish the powers of federal
> government."
>
> The case was brought up after President Bush filed an injunction against
> the document because of what he called, "the dangerous undermining of the
> War on Terror by the Bill of Rights." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,
> in his brief to the Court, noted, "Every student of political science is
> taught that the Constitution was intended to be a flexible document, and
> after much deliberation and careful thought, the President has decided to
> flex the document to its logical conclusion - irrelevance."
>
> Gonzales, previously under close scrutiny from Congress, was elated with
> the news declaring, "Not only will the decision offer the administration
> full immunity, but we will finally be given all the tools necessary to
> combat terrorism. No longer will obstructions like due process and habeas
> corpus get in the way of the president and his plans."
>
> The court's decision draws heavily on the legal tradition of judicial
> review, which was established in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. The
> Marshall Court ruled that the Judiciary had the power to strike down any
> law that the courts deemed a violation of the Constitution.
>
> Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion wrote that, ".clearly
> the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a violation of the general welfare
> clause. I think that the federal government should have the power to do
> anything it can to benefit the common man. We live in modern times and
> quaint anachronisms like the First and Second Amendment have no real
> relevance anymore."
>
> Though the Constitution had an amending process, Justice Breyer demurred
> that, "the people of the United States should not be burdened with the
> task of voting on Constitutional revisions. Moreover, the insistence that
> the citizenry be required to read amendments in English violates the 14th
> and 33rd Amendments."
>
> Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg attacked one of the document's early
> supports, labeling Thomas Jefferson as, "a bigoted slave-owner" whose
> "provincial views on political philosophy are on par with those of NASCAR
> fans."
>
> President Bush hailed the decision as a victory against the terrorists.
>
> "September 11th changed everything, either you are with us or you are with
> the Constitution. Unless I have the power to interpretate as I see fit,
> then the terrorists win. Constitutionalists have shown themselves to be in
> league with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and must be considered enemies of the
> state - thankfully they will not be able to hind behind the criminalized
> Bill of Rights any longer."
>
> Surprisingly, Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, has also lauded the
> decision as a "step in the right direction for progressivism." Although
> Strossen is, "a little concerned about the abandonment of our civil
> liberties," she is confident that, "the state will use its power to enact
> social justice legislation that had previously been denied."
>
> Cont'd.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/388qy4
>
>
>
Intelligent guy, being in High School and all. I don't agree with him, but
I am glad to see such a young guy thinking about this stuff.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/raskin5.html
I'd be willing to try. I won't even say I told you so :-P
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap