ashe

OCM, I know that at some point in your life you must have read Marbury v Madison and The Federalist Papers. When it is cold and snowy this winter, sit in front of a good fire with some really good wine or bourbon and re read them. Like me, I think you will be shocked or at least amused at the difference in your thoughts between grad school and now.

OCM, mine is not a point of view, it is the law. It is called Separation of Powers. The Supreme Court can review the actions of congress, but not how they got there. That is why you see congressmen displaying AK47s on the floor, much to the chagrin and displeasure of the feds and the DC Police who all acknowledged they have no authority to intervene against congress. During the Abscam scandal and investigation the FBI was barred from conducting any part of their investigation in the Capitol. In 1998 when two US Capitol police officers were shot, the incident was investigated by DC Police. They did not want to create a precedent by allowing the FBI to handle an investigation in the halls of congress. I do not remember the congressman's name, but a few years ago he was accused of moving his personal papers into his office at the Capitol to avoid them being seized by the FBI. No federal judge would issue a warrant to search his office, In fact the federal judges and magistrates the warrant application was presented to not only refused to issue it, they even refused to write denied on the application. The US Congress has its' own pay, retirement, health care, security and rules of operation. NONE of which may be examined by any outside agency. Only their actions are review-able and only then by an Article 3 court.

Fair - I understand your point of view, but the reason I mentioned the SC was not to indicate what they would do, but what they can do.

"JR, the House can invite anyone it wants to speak so long as 218 Representative and 5 Supreme Court Justices go along with it, which theoretically means that 175,000,000 Americans go along with it or at least the 218 don't think the 175 mil will not run them out of office"

Because the SC refuses to hear a line of complaint does not mean they can not hear anything they desire. They can hear any complaint they choose, if they choose not, that's a political decision and it takes 5 to continually make that choice.

My overall point is that the Legislative Branch can get away with whatever it wants with it's only check being the SC and having to face the voters. The Executive can not check the Congress within the framework of the Constitution. But I use the word "framework" on purpose.

We all know that depending on the situation, the Executive can have a Congressman jailed if he can find someone in law enforcement to do the dirty work. While he has no legal authority to do so, and may be rebuked at a later date, the practical matter is that the SC will set back and watch if the situation is so extreme as to threaten the Republic. Then Congress can impeach the President and if they have the votes, remove him.

For instance, let's assume the scenario that the Speaker or President Pro Tem of the Senate are compromised or outright foreign agents and the Executive has proof, and said legislator is pushing a bill that would damage American interests vis a vie that foreign power - the XYZ Affair on steroids. The President may move against the Legislator, and the President can expect a phone call from at least the one SC Justice on call, if not all of them in communication range. If he has a shred of legitimate evidence, the SC will demure to him long enough to corral the immediate danger - that's not written into the Constitution, but it's the real world.

Many of Lincoln's actions during the Civil War were not supported by a plain reading of the Constitution, but the Constitution was not written in anticipation of what South Carolina did, firing on a Federal Fort, nor did the Founders intend for any State to be able to leave the Union, per the Articles of Confederation.

FDR's interment of the Japanese Americans is another example.

SC recusal is a matter of SC choice and it's a political choice.

Get the right 5 folks who have a hair brained idea to meddle in Congress and you will see meddling. Then you can expect Congressional retaliation, such as not approving the SC's pay.

They Republic does not exist because of the Constitution, it exist because people make an effort to follow Constitution.

To some this may sound like the "Ends Justify The Means". The ends don't justify the means, except when they do. The public, historians, and judges have the final say as to whether the ends actually justified the means.

OCM, I beg to differ on one point. The Supreme Court has absolutely nothing to do with approving who speaks to Congress. The Supreme Court has refused to hear several cases involving the operation of Congress, stating they have no voice on the internal operations of Congress. That is one reason labor laws do not apply to Congress.

JR, the House can invite anyone it wants to speak so long as 218 Representative and 5 Supreme Court Justices go along with it, which theoretically means that 175,000,000 Americans go along with it or at least the 218 don't think the 175 mil will not run them out of office.

Also we don't have a parliamentary system which allows smaller than 50% vote getting parties to form a government. We have first past the post - winner take all and no separation between Government and State.

Our form of government under the current Constitution can support no more than three viable parties at one time, but that's the max, what our Constitution supports best is just one strong party, in power for a long time, and an opposition party that is weak, but with enough votes in the Senate to curb the majority.

County schools don't actually teach any of this and you usually can't get to this until you are in Sophomore or greater level Political Science. It's like a diesel engine, a lot of folks think they know how it works, and think they understand the basic concept, but they have no grasp of Thermodynamics and therefore even if they can tinker with the engine, in many cases, they really don't why it works.

1. The Pope is also a head of state. That's why the Holy See has full blown embassy's.

2. The gerrymandering of districts into safe districts is one of the roots of the current dilemma. That encourages the actual race to occur in the primary instead of the general election which then yields more politically polarized results. Wackos have a difficult time getting elected in a competitive Rep/Dem district.

3. Like I had said before, we are in what should be the 6th Party system, but it was not allowed to be born so to speak and we have an artificially held together Republican Party whose collapse allows Democratic lefties to potentially drive the Democratic party back into the ditch.

You see this in action with Clinton having to adopt lefty positions to fend off a **** socialist. The far left despises Clinton as much or more than the hard right. Neither polar end can live in the middle and make deals to actually run the nation, they need ideological fodder to feed the fools that support their little nests.

Only an abject idiot fails to change their mind and positions as the times and situations change.

The Founders never expected stupid people who did not understand basic business realities, to be allowed to vote. The vote started with citizens being defined at first as white, male, property owners, with property ownership being the most important measure based on the idea that to have and keep property, you had to have some basic sense about business and how to interact within society.

Look at the number of people who don't know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, we are not supposed to send fools to Washington to do what the poorly educated or tuned out majority want, we are supposed to elect people to the House to represent our interests and make policy in our interest. On our behalf is not at our behest.

A. You can't run government without taxes

B. You can't provide unlimited entitlements and benefits

Someone mentioned Washington and Jackson. When the folks in PA refused to pay their federal alcohol taxes Washington announced he would assemble the army and go collect the **** taxes. When SC threatened nullification and secession, Jackson threatened to come with the army and hang their governor and Senators.

The Republican Party of the 5th System is dead.

The teabillies have destroyed that Party and the real Republicans have no place to go because there is no one in charge of the Democratic Party with strength enough to bring them in and thereby pull the Democratic Party back toward the middle.

That offer can only come from the Democratic Party head who is himself a lame duck in his own party and in the Presidency. Obama can't make the offer. Pelosi doesn't have the weight to make the offer. Hillary Clinton can't win the Democratic nomination if she makes the offer.

Pete King - R NY said it best today when he noted we were heading toward a banana republic.

There are laws specifically forbidding teachers from fraternizing with students, no matter what the age of the student.

Unless it is a teacher involved with the oooh's.

According to the law, you are correct

As long as they are 16, there is nothing wrong with their oooh's Right?

I have it on good accord that there are many a young lady at the high school that can be heard screaming out "ohhhh God". So heels is right, there is still prayer in the high school at least.

First off, The government can never stop anyone from praying. If you want to pray at school, no one can stop you. What was stopped was school endorsed prayer. All of these people that run around screaming that there should be prayer in schools are hypocrites. They don't follow the Bible.

The Constitution only means how SCOTUS feels the political winds are blowing.

No where does that say anything about separation of church and state. It says the government can't restrict religion, and what SCOTUS ruled is this means we can't have a state sponsored religion (like the Church of England). It does not restrict religions from getting involved in politics. That's the big mistake everyone makes. And it does not restrict anyone from being granted permission to address congress.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The SCOTUS found that this outlaws school endorsed prayer and if it finds that to be a violation then surely an address before Congress by the head of a world religion is also. (Personally on prayer the SCOTUS is wrong since the first amendment says Congress shall make no law and schools are not Congress, however in inviting the Pope, Boehner quoted a law he helped pass that enabled him to invite the Pope....and well that's Congress and a clear violation).

The old GOP needs to be dead.

Even thought the phrase is not there, it is used in multiple supreme court rulings involving the 1st amendment.

Jr - please copy and paste the part about separation of church and state from the constitution .

This should be interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.c...hner-says/

The idea of third, fourth, and more parties is wonderful. But still not likely. Corporations and big money has gained too much control in the two party system to allow it to happen. That's why the tea party was so quickly killed by the Koch brothers.