Food Stamps at Fast Food Restaurants?

There is still no authority given by the Constitution to expand the government's power beyond the parameters of the Constitution, except that authority granted by justices adopting the spin of lawyers to so expand the authority judicially, and without the consent of the people. The timeless principles described by Randolph did not include wealth redistribution, restriction of personal rights or rights guaranteed by the 9th and 10th amendments, or providing food and health care to the public.

Just think clearly for a second, if the words of the Constitution can mean anything we want them to mean, we have no Constitution. Which is fine. If you don't like the Constitution, there are ways to get rid of it, legally. Until then, I suggest we follow it.

... there are ways to get rid of it, legally. Until then, I suggest we follow it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Court has the authority to undo that which has been imprudently done.

That is done by direct assault, distinguishing remarks, diluting decisions, and by refusing to consider a review of a lower court decision that is inconsistent with a prior opinion.

There is still no authority given by the Constitution to expand the government's power beyond the parameters of the Constitution, except that authority granted by justices adopting the spin of lawyers Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A Constitution doesn't interpret itself. Only a court can do that. The Constitution recognized that and set up the Supreme Court and such lesser courts as Congress may create. To say that the Constitution doesn't allow for interpretation by the very Court that the Constitution sets up to interpret Constitutional matters is circular nonsense.

Look at the examples given Judge Posner, a raving hard right conservative if there was ever one:

Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home....

Do you think that the State of Texas could Constitutionally do these things? If not, you need to find a specific grant in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to hold these acts unconstitutional by the theory that you are apparently espousing.

what has become of the world? ohhh dear

A Constitution doesn't interpret itself. Only a court can do that. The Constitution recognized that and set up the Supreme Court and such lesser courts as Congress may create. To say that the Constitution doesn't allow for interpretation by the very Court that the Constitution sets up to interpret Constitutional matters is circular nonsense. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

He didn't say: "the Constitution doesn't allow for interpretation...."

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
There is still no authority given by the Constitution to expand the government's power beyond the parameters of the Constitution, except that authority granted by justices adopting the spin of lawyers ...

TTH, do you post "stuff" so you can win the dicussion with yourself?

Tex, read the 9th and 10th amendments.

Methodologies must evolve with the times. However, principles remain timeless. Principles like limited government, personal responsibility, prudence with public funds, private charity.

And as far as declaring acts of the legislature unconstitutional, that is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself that authority in Marbury v. Madison, in an opinion by Justice John Marshall. Marshall should not have even participated in that case, because he was a principal in the litigation. The issue was whether Marshall, as Secretary of State, should have given certain credentials to new appointees, which he failed to do before he left office to take his seat on the Supreme Court.

We have three co-equal branches of government, but one branch is more equal than the others.

Well who do you think has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, if not the Supreme Court?

Well who do you think has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, if not the Supreme Court? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

United States District Court
United States Court of Appeals
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourt...overnment.aspx

United States District Court
United States Court of Appeals
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourt...overnment.aspx Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're correct (depending on what part of a law is being challenged).
But the Supreme Court has the final say.

United States District Court
United States Court of Appeals
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourt...overnment.aspx Originally Posted by LexusLover

The question wasn't directed at you. CuteOldGuy apparently rejects the central holding of Marbury v. Madison, which holds that it is the judicial branch that have the ultimate authority of deciding whether an act of Congress is Constitutional.

I do reject the holding. That was my point. John Marshall was the official at issue, he had no business writing the opinion.

Who then has the power to decide if an action of Congress, signed by the President violates the Constitution?

Let's say Congress passes a law, that is signed by the President, that mandates that Islam is the official religion of the U.S. and that we all must face Mecca and pray five times a day or face incarceration. Who is there to decide that violates the establishment clause if you reject the central holding of Marbury v. Madison?

Who then has the power to decide if an action of Congress, signed by the President violates the Constitution?

Let's say Congress passes a law, that is signed by the President, that mandates that Islam is the official religion of the U.S. and that we all must face Mecca and pray five times a day or face incarceration. Who is there to decide that violates the establishment clause if you reject the central holding of Marbury v. Madison? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Perhaps nobody: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" - President Andrew Jackson

But the Supreme Court has the final say. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

When it "say" .... just want it clear that lower federal courts can hold legislation (or a part thereof .. or the application thereof) "unconstitutional" and the Supreme Court can "abstain" and thereby the lower by default has held the law unconstitutional or its application unconstitutional.

My friend is 83 years old and skin and bone. She has worked hard all her life and never took a hand out. She swallowed her pride and applied for food stamps. Just because she did not bring her lease agreement she was refused help.

I am tired of the wrong people getting food stamps and free medical. Especially if they are not American citizens.