To be fair those breaks are filled with paid advertising when screened live on TV. They do not screen those ads on the Internet. They could edit it I suppose but it is easy enough to skip forwards if not watching live online.
I think the Conservatives are doing a wonderful job in opposition; sit back, say nothing, watch Lie-bore destroy the country, the country turn against Lie-bore, and hopefully vote conservative at the next election 😂😂😂
It worked for the current shower during the election campaign, but it won't wash for what is supposed to be His Majesty's opposition. They should be really vocal in actually opposing the danger being presented to this country but are remaining silent. It is disgraceful.
The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy was fastened onto the necks of the American people as an irrevocable yoke because it was done insidiously, and under the cover of more striking and dramatic events, such as the Civil War. After the Second World War, the judicial activists, who had thoroughly cowed the leaders of our two political parties, imposed a series of stunning decisions which, in effect, placed the American people on notice that they now had no rights remaining to them. This situation was dramatized by Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas, in a speech to the Arkansas Legislature, Aug. 26,1958, in which he quoted extensively from the resolutions passed by the Conference of Chief Justices of the State Supreme Courts earlier that month, concluding with their finding that: "The Supreme Court has been usurping the rights reserved to the states by the Constitution.. . . It is not merely the final arbiter of the law; it is the maker of policy in many major social and economic fields." The activists' pretensions to judicial supremacy dates from the historic case of Marbury v. Madison, 1803. The decision was the work of Chief Justice John Marshall, who had been appointed to the court by President John Adams, the leader of the New England school of separatists. Marshall ruled that the judiciary has the power to strike down any law or act of Congress which violate the Constitution under Art. III, sec. 2 par. 1, or "the supreme law of the land" clause, Art. VI, sec. 2. However, Marbury v. Madison, rather than being a sweeping review which established the court as the final arbiter of government power, was actually a partisan political squabble over the spoils of election victory. Congress had passed a new Circuit Court bill Feb. 13,1801, which authorized sixteen additional federal judges. Pres. Adams at once filled them with Federalists, who were confirmed by the Senate March 2, and their appointments signed by President Adams and sealed by Secretary of State John Madison on March 3. Marbury v. Madison arose from a comparable situation, the passing on Feb. 27, 1801 of the District of Columbia Organic Act, provided for the appointment by the President of justices of the peace for Washington and Alexandria within the District. On March 2, the President nominated twenty-three justices for Washington and nineteen for Alexandria and sealed by the secretary before midnight of March 3, the famous "midnight justices of the peace. The commissions were delivered that same night by Marshall's brother James. However, William Marbury of Washington did not have his commission delivered, which became the subject of litigation in December of 1801; the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court in Feb., 1803. John Marshall believed that the commissions were valid when the Seal of the United States was affixed, rather than when they were delivered. Today, the Supreme Court has no file on the case or any of the papers relevant to it. The only record is that made by reporter William Cranch. The Court ruled that Marbury had a right to the commission because of the power of the Court to adjudicate the validity of an Act of Congress. However, the Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus, thus deciding in favor of Madison. The Court stated that the Constitution forbade the grant of power to issue the writ but that the Court did have the power of judicial review. The Court ruled that the Constitution was the superior and paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, and the supreme law of the land. Sec. 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 attempted to give the Supreme Court power to issue a writ of mandamus in an original proceeding against an officer of the United States, including the Secretary of State; the Court concluded that Art. Ill of the Constitution prohibited the grant of such power by Congress to the Supreme Court. Thus the original dilemma, that Secretary of State James Madison had worked far into the night signing commissions of justices of the peace for the Federalist Party, including Marbury's commission, had had part of his work undone when the incoming Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, seeing the stack of signed co mm issions on the following morning, decided that he would not allow them, and threw them into the wastebasket. Marbury then sued to obtain the commission he had been promised for his dedicated party service. In deciding the case, Chief Justice Marshall, one of the leaders of the Federalist Party, cleverly avoided the main issue before the Court, that of partisan politics, and shifted the issue to one of governmental powers, by deciding that the final arbiter would henceforth be the Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson delivered his opinion on the Marbury v. Madison decision, stating
Nothing in the Constitution has given them (the Supreme Court), a right to decide for the Executive, more than for the Executive to decide for them. The opinion. . . would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Jefferson further warned about judicial supremacy in 1819, stating, "The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." However, the court was careful not to flaunt its newly assumed power. Between 1803 and 1870, the Court declared as unconstitutional only six acts of Congress, three of those being decided in 1870. From 1871 to 1899, it overruled Congress sixteen times, a power which was increasingly used from 1900 to 1936, during the period of Holmesian judicial activism. During that period, the Court rendered fifty- one decisions against the Congress. The battle over an American central bank also spawned landmark decisions by the Supreme Court. After the European Rothschilds had commissioned Alexander Hamilton to set up a central bank in the United States, immediately after the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson led the fight against its adoption. In McCulloch v. Madison, 1819, the Supreme Court upheld the bank against the states. In Craig v. Missouri, 1830, the Supreme Court invoked the Constitutional ban on state-issued currency to invalidate loan certificates issued by a state, a decision which severely affected the growth of state banks, and encouraged the demand for a central bank. A longtime crusader against the central bank, Roger Taney, was rewarded for his opposition by President Andrew Jackson, who appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1836. In 1837, the Taney Court reversed Craig v. Missouri in the decision of Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, and upheld the state law authorizing the issuance of bank notes by a state institution. Lawrence Tribe comments on this decision, "The demise of the central banking system and consequent disruption of the nation's finances played a large part in triggering the devastating economic depression of 1837." Although Tribe is a well-known legal scholar, he seems less aware of the facts about monetary history. Henry Clews stated, in his book, "Twenty-Eight Years in Wall Street," "The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of England when it in one day threw out all the paper connected with the United States." As the present writer pointed out in "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," the order to refuse any American securities, shares or loans came directly from Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who thereby deliberately precipitated the panic of 1837. The goal was to punish the United States for refusing Rothschild's central bank, and to drive down the prices of all shares in a financial panic, such shares then being available for purchase by the Rothschilds at a much lower price. Does Tribe known anything of these details? A Harvard law professor since the age of twenty-seven,
The public also remember which party left NO money in the Treasury vaults in 2010!😡
The civil serpents have not been impartial since 1997! 👎😡
Mark Dolan Tonight more like a advertisement fest for GB news shows
To be fair those breaks are filled with paid advertising when screened live on TV.
They do not screen those ads on the Internet. They could edit it I suppose but it is easy enough to skip forwards if not watching live online.
I think the Conservatives are doing a wonderful job in opposition; sit back, say nothing, watch Lie-bore destroy the country, the country turn against Lie-bore, and hopefully vote conservative at the next election 😂😂😂
It worked for the current shower during the election campaign, but it won't wash for what is supposed to be His Majesty's opposition.
They should be really vocal in actually opposing the danger being presented to this country but are remaining silent. It is disgraceful.
The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy was fastened onto the necks of the
American people as an irrevocable yoke because it was done insidiously, and
under the cover of more striking and dramatic events, such as the Civil War. After
the Second World War, the judicial activists, who had thoroughly cowed the leaders
of our two political parties, imposed a series of stunning decisions which, in effect,
placed the American people on notice that they now had no rights remaining to
them. This situation was dramatized by Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas, in a
speech to the Arkansas Legislature, Aug. 26,1958, in which he quoted extensively
from the resolutions passed by the Conference of Chief Justices of the State
Supreme Courts earlier that month, concluding with their finding that:
"The Supreme Court has been usurping the rights reserved to the states by the
Constitution.. . . It is not merely the final arbiter of the law; it is the maker of policy in
many major social and economic fields."
The activists' pretensions to judicial supremacy dates from the historic case of
Marbury v. Madison, 1803. The decision was the work of Chief Justice John
Marshall, who had been appointed to the court by President John Adams, the
leader of the New England school of separatists. Marshall ruled that the judiciary
has the power to strike down any law or act of Congress which violate the
Constitution under Art. III, sec. 2 par. 1, or "the supreme law of the land" clause,
Art. VI, sec. 2. However, Marbury v. Madison, rather than being a sweeping review
which established the court as the final arbiter of government power, was actually a
partisan political squabble over the spoils of election victory. Congress had passed
a new Circuit Court bill Feb. 13,1801, which authorized sixteen additional federal
judges. Pres. Adams at once filled them with Federalists, who were confirmed by
the Senate March 2, and their appointments signed by President Adams and sealed
by Secretary of State John Madison on March 3. Marbury v. Madison arose from a
comparable situation, the passing on Feb. 27, 1801 of the District of Columbia
Organic Act, provided for the appointment by the President of justices of the peace
for Washington and Alexandria within the District.
On March 2, the President nominated twenty-three justices for Washington and
nineteen for Alexandria and sealed by the secretary before midnight of March 3, the
famous "midnight justices of the peace. The commissions were delivered that same
night by Marshall's brother James. However, William Marbury of Washington did not
have his commission delivered, which became the subject of litigation in December
of 1801; the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court in Feb., 1803. John
Marshall believed that the commissions were valid when the Seal of the United
States was affixed, rather than when they were delivered. Today, the Supreme
Court has no file on the case or any of the papers relevant to it. The only record is
that made by reporter William Cranch. The Court ruled that Marbury had a right to
the commission because of the power of the Court to adjudicate the validity of an
Act of Congress. However, the Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus, thus
deciding in favor of Madison. The Court stated that the Constitution forbade the
grant of power to issue the writ but that the Court did have the power of judicial
review. The Court ruled that the Constitution was the superior and paramount law,
unchangeable by ordinary means, and the supreme law of the land. Sec. 13 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 attempted to give the Supreme Court power to issue a writ of
mandamus in an original proceeding against an officer of the United States,
including the Secretary of State; the Court concluded that Art. Ill of the Constitution
prohibited the grant of such power by Congress to the Supreme Court.
Thus the original dilemma, that Secretary of State James Madison had worked
far into the night signing commissions of justices of the peace for the Federalist
Party, including Marbury's commission, had had part of his work undone when the
incoming Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, seeing the stack of signed co mm
issions on the following morning, decided that he would not allow them, and threw
them into the wastebasket. Marbury then sued to obtain the commission he had
been promised for his dedicated party service. In deciding the case, Chief Justice
Marshall, one of the leaders of the Federalist Party, cleverly avoided the main issue
before the Court, that of partisan politics, and shifted the issue to one of
governmental powers, by deciding that the final arbiter would henceforth be the
Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson delivered his opinion on the Marbury v. Madison decision,
stating
Nothing in the Constitution has given them (the Supreme Court), a right to
decide for the Executive, more than for the Executive to decide for them. The
opinion. . . would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Jefferson further warned about judicial supremacy in 1819, stating,
"The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the
judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
However, the court was careful not to flaunt its newly assumed power. Between
1803 and 1870, the Court declared as unconstitutional only six acts of Congress,
three of those being decided in 1870. From 1871 to 1899, it overruled Congress
sixteen times, a power which was increasingly used from 1900 to 1936, during the
period of Holmesian judicial activism. During that period, the Court rendered fifty-
one decisions against the Congress.
The battle over an American central bank also spawned landmark decisions by
the Supreme Court. After the European Rothschilds had commissioned Alexander
Hamilton to set up a central bank in the United States, immediately after the
American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson led the fight against its adoption. In
McCulloch v. Madison, 1819, the Supreme Court upheld the bank against the
states. In Craig v. Missouri, 1830, the Supreme Court invoked the Constitutional
ban on state-issued currency to invalidate loan certificates issued by a state, a
decision which severely affected the growth of state banks, and encouraged the
demand for a central bank. A longtime crusader against the central bank, Roger
Taney, was rewarded for his opposition by President Andrew Jackson, who
appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1836. In 1837, the Taney Court reversed
Craig v. Missouri in the decision of Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, and upheld the
state law authorizing the issuance of bank notes by a state institution. Lawrence
Tribe comments on this decision,
"The demise of the central banking system and consequent disruption of the
nation's finances played a large part in triggering the devastating economic
depression of 1837."
Although Tribe is a well-known legal scholar, he seems less aware of the facts
about monetary history. Henry Clews stated, in his book, "Twenty-Eight Years in
Wall Street,"
"The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of England when it in one day
threw out all the paper connected with the United States."
As the present writer pointed out in "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," the order
to refuse any American securities, shares or loans came directly from Nathan
Mayer Rothschild, who thereby deliberately precipitated the panic of 1837. The goal
was to punish the United States for refusing Rothschild's central bank, and to drive
down the prices of all shares in a financial panic, such shares then being available
for purchase by the Rothschilds at a much lower price. Does Tribe known anything
of these details? A Harvard law professor since the age of twenty-seven,
So what are you trying to say.