You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2012.

So here we go again, “Obama Care” is “unconstitutional”. Michelle Bachman and her peers are trying to teach us all the meaning of the constitution and what it is to be American. They will use big words like “liberty” and “freedom”. They will tell us how terrible the big bad federal government is.

Yes, they are the guardians of the constitution, they are the guardians of our freedom and liberty, but… Where are they in over turning the Supreme Court ruling in Reigel v. Medtronic providing federal pre-emption over states rights.

Where are they when Supreme Court took away my right to sue in a state court, a local state court out my back door with a jury of my peers, a jury my neighbors to decide how we want our community oriented. Where are they in defending my right to go to court?

The Supreme Court said that when the politically controlled FDA approves a flawed design for a medical device and that medical device fails I am not allowed to sue in a state court for compensation.

Where are you in defending the 7th., 6th. or 5th. Amendment? You and your peers have been absent. Maybe you did not see any amendments beyond the first two. There are total of twenty-seven, twenty-five which are ignored.

I have heard it all before, over and over again Mrs. Bachman. You can not BS me with your constitutional rhetoric. I have also been around the block a few times.

Just in case my conservative friends are not as well versed in what the founders were talking about when they added the seventh amendment here it is in a Thomas Jefferson letter (to L’Abbe Arnoux), Jul. 19, 1789. A substantially complete collection of Jefferson’ writings, in manuscript, is available at [1]

.

[w]e all know that permanent judges acquire an esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the decision of cross and pile than to that of a judge biased to one side; and that the opinion of twelve honest jurymen gives still a better hope of right than cross and pile does. It is left therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.

Advertisements