Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[Farnhamia]

I've posted this twice already: viewtopic.php?p=9000454#p9000454

It hits federal courts too.

Then it's flatly unconstitutional. The legislature does not have the power to take away the judiciary's separate power.

Yes, Congress can do that. Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Emphasis added)

[Neutraligon]

Since when did the Constitution become relevant to the thread? This is Republican Primary thread guys. The Constitution has no meaning.

Since the Republican candidates comment that they are attempting to return to the "true" values of the Constitution.

[Funkadelia]

Since when did the Constitution become relevant to the thread? This is Republican Primary thread guys. The Constitution has no meaning.

Yet Obama and his democrat troupe can force through his unconstitutional healthcare law? Get real.

[Hittanryan]

Since when did the Constitution become relevant to the thread? This is Republican Primary thread guys. The Constitution has no meaning.

Yet Obama and his democrat troupe can force through his unconstitutional healthcare law? Get real.

Please point to the specific clause of a given Article or Amendment of the Constitution that explicitly prohibits the ACA.

Go on, we'll wait.

[Wikkiwallana]

Since when did the Constitution become relevant to the thread? This is Republican Primary thread guys. The Constitution has no meaning.

Yet Obama and his democrat troupe can force through his unconstitutional healthcare law? Get real.

I'm sorry, nearly a year of back and forth bargaining is forcing legislation through now?

Up next: Police will will begin cracking down on turtles for speeding!

[The Black Forrest]

Since when did the Constitution become relevant to the thread? This is Republican Primary thread guys. The Constitution has no meaning.

Well? It's the Republicans. They like to alternate wrapping themselves with the flag and the Constitution.

[Allrule]

Yet Obama and his democrat troupe can force through his unconstitutional healthcare law? Get real.

Please point to the specific clause of a given Article or Amendment of the Constitution that explicitly prohibits the ACA.

Go on, we'll wait.

The "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Amendment.

[Cromarty]

Since when did the Constitution become relevant to the thread? This is Republican Primary thread guys. The Constitution has no meaning.

Well? It's the Republicans. The like to alternate wrapping themselves with the flag and the Constitution.

And shit on the Bill of Rights. *nod*

[Tmutarakhan]

Then it's flatly unconstitutional. The legislature does not have the power to take away the judiciary's separate power.

Yes, Congress can do that. Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Emphasis added)

It can, as I said, take away the right of the supreme court to hear appeals. It cannot eliminate the right of the judicial branch to hear cases altogether.

[Quelesh]

It's called jurisdiction stripping, and it's something that I generally oppose. The ability to do this comes from the exceptions clause:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I don't think that Congress should be stripping the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear any case.

It wouldn't quite have the effect conservatives are hoping for. Federal courts would still hear abortion / discrimination / flag-burning / school-prayer / whatever cases, but since they could not go up to the Supreme Court, if different federal courts make different rules in different parts of the country, the disagreements would be left unresolved.

My understanding is that since Congress created the circuit/district courts in the first place (only the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution), it can define their jurisdiction. I'm not an expert, and I would like jurisdiction stripping on a large scale to be unconstitutional, but after looking into it, it doesn't appear to be. (There's an argument that stripping jurisdiction from both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts on a particular issue is unconstitutional for removing judicial power, but that's an argument that apparently SCOTUS itself has disagreed with in the past.)

[Laerod]

Yes, Congress can do that. Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Emphasis added)

It can, as I said, take away the right of the supreme court to hear appeals. It cannot eliminate the right of the judicial branch to hear cases altogether.

It can, however, eliminate any judges that deign to hear these cases.

[Tmutarakhan]

It can, as I said, take away the right of the supreme court to hear appeals. It cannot eliminate the right of the judicial branch to hear cases altogether.

It can, however, eliminate any judges that deign to hear these cases.

If we don't have any Article III judges at all, then we are hardly operating under the constitution any more. If there are any judges, the clause about appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the courts in general.

[The Rich Port]

The face of a revolutionary.

All he is missing is a cigar, a beard, and a beret.

My sarcasm meter broke. D:

And a clue.

That too

[Coccygia]

That was entirely different. That was the Repunlicans!*

*I have decided to leave this misspelled.

I don't see what you're getting at, both presidents were completely out of line when implementing such acts. But Bush was far worse than Obama.

I would have that the "Repunlicans" bit might have alerted you to the fact that I was being sarcastic. Sorry I overestimated your perspicacity.

[Daistallia 2104]

It ain't over in Iowa yet...
The winner is Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul.

[Allrule]

It ain't over in Iowa yet...
The winner is Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul.

See! I TOLD you Ron Paul would win, but you didn't listen!

Just like that time when I told you it was Quirrell, not Snape, who wanted the Philosopher's Stone!

I really have no idea where I was going with this.

[Wikkiwallana]

It ain't over in Iowa yet...
The winner is Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul.

Hurray, an excuse to bring up this article:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/paul- ... light-zone

Edit: typo

[Farnhamia]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/gingrich-says-romney-will-be-nominee-urges-unity/?hp

Newt Gingrich sounds like a man who is throwing in the towel.

At an appearance in North Carolina, Mr. Gingrich conceded that Mitt Romney would be the party’s nominee and suggested that he would leave the race in the next several days.

“I think you have to at some point be honest with what’s happening in the real world, as opposed to what you’d like to have happened,” Mr. Gingrich said, according to a brief report in the National Journal.

A person close to Mr. Gingrich said Wednesday that he plans to formally drop out of the race next Tuesday. Efforts to reach the campaign for comment were not successful.

Say it ain't so, Newt!

[Grave_n_idle]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/gingrich-says-romney-will-be-nominee-urges-unity/?hp

Newt Gingrich sounds like a man who is throwing in the towel.

At an appearance in North Carolina, Mr. Gingrich conceded that Mitt Romney would be the party’s nominee and suggested that he would leave the race in the next several days.

“I think you have to at some point be honest with what’s happening in the real world, as opposed to what you’d like to have happened,” Mr. Gingrich said, according to a brief report in the National Journal.

A person close to Mr. Gingrich said Wednesday that he plans to formally drop out of the race next Tuesday. Efforts to reach the campaign for comment were not successful.

Say it ain't so, Newt!

I find it hard to believe Newt said: “I think you have to at some point be honest with what’s happening in the real world, as opposed to what you’d like to have happened,” - given that it would be the exact opposite of... well, his career.

[Farnhamia]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/gingrich-says-romney-will-be-nominee-urges-unity/?hp



Say it ain't so, Newt!

I find it hard to believe Newt said: “I think you have to at some point be honest with what’s happening in the real world, as opposed to what you’d like to have happened,” - given that it would be the exact opposite of... well, his career.

Callista probably wrote that for him.