Wanna watch/listen to some fundamental Supreme Court and Original Intent talk?

First 30 minutes of this edition of The Jason Stapleton Program features disabled vet, ex-St. Louis prosecutor, current TEA Party activist and constitutional educator KrisAnne Hall...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O31N1jsbOMs

...if you'd like to read what a socialist traitor Hall was born as, and chose to live a lot of her life as, go here:

http://krisannehall.com/about-krisanne-hall/

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education, which is the true corrective of abuses of federal power.

Thomas Jefferson letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820

Click to expand...

BTW, wannabes: Jefferson isn't talking about some utopian democratic "society" as you socialists unicorn fart-fantasize of. Just sayin'.

irksomesauce said:

First 30 minutes of this edition of The Jason Stapleton Program features disabled vet, ex-St. Louis prosecutor, current TEA Party activist and constitutional educator KrisAnne Hall...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O31N1jsbOMs

...if you'd like to read what a socialist traitor Hall was born as, and chose to live a lot of her life as, go here:

http://krisannehall.com/about-krisanne-hall/



BTW, wannabes: Jefferson isn't talking about some utopian democratic "society" as you socialists unicorn fart-fantasize of. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, he is.

irksomesauce said:

First 30 minutes of this edition of The Jason Stapleton Program features disabled vet, ex-St. Louis prosecutor, current TEA Party activist and constitutional educator KrisAnne Hall...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O31N1jsbOMs

...if you'd like to read what a socialist traitor Hall was born as, and chose to live a lot of her life as, go here:

http://krisannehall.com/about-krisanne-hall/



BTW, wannabes: Jefferson isn't talking about some utopian democratic "society" as you socialists unicorn fart-fantasize of. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Didn't Jefferson own, buy & sell people as property?

SgtSpiderMan said:

Didn't Jefferson own, buy & sell people as property?

Click to expand...

He's holding the wolf by the ears (can't let go, that would be too dangerous); while dreaming of a future where all white Americans will own their own small farms, unmortgaged and owing no rent to a landlord; or else be tradesmen owning their own tools; and a very small number will be merchants, bankers or professionals (but no manufacturing industrialists); and the Indians will amalgamate with the whites by intermarriage; and the blacks will be emancipated and deported to Africa. That was Jefferson's vision of a free and egalitarian society. It has a lot in common with the early-20th-Century Catholic idea of Distributism, intended as an alternative to both socialism and capitalism -- and, like Distributism, it really would not work in a world where economic enterprises must be large-scale to flourish.

Ms. Hall's discussion of original intent with regard to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as defined in Article Three makes the case that said jurisdiction is limited to only those cases "arising under the Constitution" which then goes on to describe the scope of those cases in some detail. Obviously at the time of the Constitution's passing, there were no such cases dealing with appellate jurisdiction of state court decisions dealing SOLELY with state issues or crimes, i.e. those cases NOT involving a legitimate and obvious federal issue as defined specifically by the Constitution. Apart from those cases INVOLVING states as mentioned in Article Three, all other INTRASTATE legal matters were NONE of the federal government's business.

That all changed dramatically with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Section 1 of which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Click to expand...

The Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 takes the "privileges and immunities" provided under the Constitution and prohibits states from "abridging" them via passage of state legislation.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist (or even a graduate of law school) to understand that any abridgement of "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" as defined in the 14th Amendment would, after that Amendment's ratification, becomes a potential case "arising under the (amended) Constitution" and therefore come under the eventual jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.

What miss Hall and "shitsauce" refuse to acknowledge is that one of the "original intents" of the founding fathers was to allow for the legal amending of the Constitution in any direction drastically deviating from their original intent, and that the ONLY recourse of the people in that instance would be either to amend the Constitution BACK to a prior state (think prohibition) or overthrow the government by force.

Since Constitutional amendments take a substantial majority of the approval and cooperation of the people's elected representatives, it is specious to represent those amendments as evidence of a government out of control and antithetical to the will of the people expressed through those same representatives.

But that is the case Eyer will try to make if he has any spittle left after obscenely questioning my heritage.