Re: US currency unconstitutional?
Caution!!! OT Rabbit rant follows
And its all Rons fault!<br />
<br /><br />A few of the colonies/states had a requirement you had to be a member of a specific church in order to vote. Hence the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights; the idea being everyone (men) should able to vote regardless of any religious affiliation.<br /><br />The fed govt can establish a federal religion; they just cant fund it or require anyone to belong to it; i.e. it can never amount to anything more than a nebulous idea.<br /><br />Ron nailed it, the judiciary in the United States is out of control; corrupt beyond belief. Its not just corrupt, it is really,
really corrupt. Maybe a ray of light is opening within the judicial darkness in South Dakota. Actually, a pretty interesting situation is now starting to come together there, if the timing is right.<br /><br />SDs legislature is moving to outlaw all abortion except when the mothers life is at stake. Obviously unconstitutional by today's judical standards, but the legislature doesnt care. The states atty genl plans to keep appealing any courts decision striking down their abortion ban until the case gets to the US Supreme Court. SD is gambling the brand new landscape of the Fed SC will be willing to overturn Row v Wade.<br /><br />But thats not particularly interesting. Whats interesting is SD also has something on the ballot called Amendment E. If the timing is right and Amend E passes, it will make a judge personally responsible for a decision IF the judge
intentionally violates the law or doesnt have a basis in law for the decision. It will be the death nail to ruling from the bench in SDs state courts.<br /><br />Who will decide when a judge INTENTIALLY vacates their oath of office to uphold the constitution?!? It wont be other judges. Wont be lawyers, either. Not even cops will be able to make that decision. A special grand jury will be seated, comprised of everyday people not associated with the legal industry or law enforcement. First offense: the judges is fined and may be personally sued by whomever was wronged by that judge's decision. Second offence: removal from the bench, and may be sued.<br /><br />JAIL, Judicial Accountability Initiative Legislation. JAIL is being opposed by every lawyers organization in the country, every judges organization in the country, every District Attys org. Law enforcement is suspiciously quiet on the issue, although some retired law enforcement is very supportive of JAIL. The judiciaries of California, Oregon, Idaho, Texas, Tenn, Kansas, Arkansas, Florida, New York, New Jersey have all gotten directly involved in the defeat of JAIL in South Dakota. SDs legislature is spending taxpayers money to build and maintain a website to support the defeat of JAIL.<br /><br />Amazing! All of that taxpayer's money and legal effort aligning to defeat a law that does nothing more than make a judge accountable for their actions, but only if a judge INTENTIALLY violates the law. Unintentional violations and errors in rulings will not carry any penalty and will need to be resolved thru the appeals process as they always have.<br /><br />Whats going to be most interesting is if JAIL passes before the outlawing of abortion passes. The abortion issue will be challenged in SD courts, but the state judges initially hearing the case will be bound to decide based on what is constitutional, les they be fined and sued and made to personally pay the cost of an appeal of their decision. Row v. Wade is NOT based in any constitutional law; it is embedded in a courts action of legislating from the bench; a decision to embed abortion in the right to privacy.<br /><br />So a judge in SD hearing an abortion ban case will need to hold Row v Wade up to the light of the constitution and decide if the shines thru without obstruction on the
right to abort, regardless of what Row v Wade says. It may well be a state court in SD decides the US Supreme Court erred, and the SD state court will be bound to uphold a ban on abortion in SD, and in so doing start unraveling the threads that hold Row v Wade together, causing the US Supreme Court to hear a right to abort case all over again.
