Uberpenguin, nodnod. HS^: you mean [ST]alin, his clan was Serious Torture, right?…

GMA’s ‘territorial piss marks’ (like cats’ and dogs’ piss on tree trunks or car tires) is all over the place. The pattern is obvious, the musky stink is distictly GMA’s.

Latest example:”LTFRB Chrmn Bautista will be replaced by retired police Gen. Thompson Lantion, also a staunch supporter of former Philippine National Police chief and currently DoTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza”.

GMA loyalist generals occupy key civilian positions, effectivey giving military men control of beurocracy.

Is the SC spared from GMA’s ‘piss marks’? Should we blame people who smell something musky or fishy?

Yup… defeatism.

hindi na kailangan ng bribe. ilan na ba ang na-appoint ni Arroyo sa SC?

We are already in a hopeless situation, politically.

Language is a tool.

The U.S. Constitution is the basic law for a national federal system for a union of states. That is the basic legal foundational framework. The powers of the federal governmenrt were clearly stated in broad terms. Each state had its own constitutions.

When Lincoln was elected some Southern states immediatley seceeded and Jefferson Davis was chosen President of the Confederacy. The Union was broken. Unilaterally the Southern States tore up the U.S. Constitution.

In Lincoln’s First address he clearly stated in his own words,

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
“Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:”
“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”
“I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another. There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:”
“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Lincoln however made a distinction from the issue of slavery to the more important issue of the binding agreement of all the States that the issue of seceession was a totally different matter. He said that for the Union to break up, permission must come from the joint decision of all the States and not simply some.
He clearly saw dissolution of the union as a serious challenge tantamount to the intent of the framers and signers to that Constittution.
“A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.” Lincoln
“Constitutional checks and limitations.”
Today we have four branches of government.
Is removing one of the Constitutional checks and limitations on the so called “majority” tantamount to substantially changing the basic law into aa new one?
I highly recommend everyone read Lincoln’s first inaugural address to grasp his clear understanding of the intent of Constitutional Law.
He later added an amendment to the Constitution freeing the slaves. A lot of these slaves then simply left their task masters and flocked North.
Was the Civil war simply about slavery? No. It was about preserving the checks and limitations on absolute power that Lincoln believed would lead to tyranny and anarchy.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
Unicameral with the promise of federal provinces and full liberalization. Are you ripping up the constitution and writing a new one or are you amending it?
The methodology is clear on when and how to use the three means of a single amendment and substantially changing the thrust and direction of the old one to make it in line with the so called new global realities.
George Washingtons’ second executive order was a tariff wall that stayed in place till the end of the Second World War. Pat Buchanan points out that the four Presidents carved on Mount Rushmore, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Washington, Jefferson were all protectionists.

Are we now allowing the dissolution of the work in progress state
all simply based on someone’s religion of the free markets and free trade?