2019年5月16日11:23:33其他揭露美国最高法院裁决让美国左翼人士陷入恐慌已关闭评论5343字数 5485阅读18分17秒阅读模式


An interesting new Ministry of Foreign Affairs(MoFA)report circulating in the Kremlin today noting US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo having arrived in Sochi-Russia after he issued a threat from President Trump to the European Union warning them not to develop their own arms projects—and afterwards his saying"we need to find a way forward in US-Russia relations"—states that this top US diplomat's meeting with President Putin will only deal with"the most pressing issues"—one of which is the United States'"socialist infected"legal system no nation in the world can rely upon for just and fair rulings—but whose cure for was put on display in the hours before this critical Putin-Pompeo meeting when the US Supreme Court rushed out two rulings—Franchise Tax Board Of California v.Hyatt and Apple Inc.v.Pepper ET AL.—both of which combined to display that the US legal system is finally beginning to disinfect itself from decades of partisan political rulings and return itself to the rule of law—whose main side effect of now shows American leftists filled with terror and panic—and as best exampled by the socialist-leftist group Demand Justice who sent out an urgent message declaring"RED ALERT no Court precedent,however many decades old,is safe"as they know the judgment day of their demise now looms over them.[Note:Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

今天在克里姆林宫流传的一份有趣的外交部新报告指出,美国国务卿迈克·庞皮欧已经抵达索契-俄罗斯Sochi-Russia),此前他向欧盟发出特朗普总统的威胁,警告他们不要发展自己的武器项目ーー之后他说"我们需要找到一条推进美俄关系的道路"ーー这位美国最高外交官与普京总统的会晤只会处理"最紧迫的问题"——其中之一是美国的"受社会主义影响的"法律体系,世界上没有哪个国家可以依靠它来做出公正和公平的裁决——但在普京-庞皮欧会议召开前的几个小时,美国最高法院匆忙作出了两项裁决——加利福尼亚州特许税务委员会诉凯悦和苹果公司诉佩珀等人案。两者结合在一起,表明美国司法体系终于开始从数十年的党派政治裁决中消毒,回归法治。法治的主要副作用如今表明,美国左派充满了恐惧和恐慌。社会主义左翼组织要求正义(Demand Justice)就是最好的例子。该组织发出紧急信息,宣称"红色警报法院的先例,无论有多少年的历史,都是不安全的",因为他们知道,他们的灭亡的判决日已经迫在眉睫。:本报告引号中的一些单词和/或短语是英语中俄语单词/短语的近似形式,没有准确的对应词



According to this report,in an interconnected world whose myriad problems and issues are all too frequently settled in courts of law in order to prevent war,the necessity of all courts,especially in large trading nations like Russia and the United States,must always be viewed as giving fair and unbiased rulings in the hearings they conduct and decide upon—but over the past nearly 100-years,has not been evidenced in an Americanlegal system whose original foundation was upended and replaced by too-many-to-count partisan politically motivated rulings that have created a contradictory and chaotic legal system so bizarre,no one knows anymore what's legal and illegal.


Throwing the entire American legal system into this chaos,this report explains,is a legal doctrine called"Stare Decisis"—that obligates US courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case—and more simply put,binds these courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

这份报告解释称,"遵循先例"(Stare Decisis)的法律原则让整个美国法律体系陷入混乱。该原则要求美国法院在对类似案件做出裁决时,必须遵循历史案例,而且更简单地说,就是要求这些法院遵循先前裁决中确立的法律先例。


The inherent contradiction of the"Stare Decisis"legal doctrine,this report details,is most shamefully displayed in the 1857 case decided by the US Supreme Court titled Dred Scott v.Sandford—which held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people,regardless of whether they were enslaved or free,and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could never apply to them—a ruling that was never overturned—but superseded by direct amendments to the US Constitution,particularly by the Thirteenth Amendment,which abolished slavery,and by the first clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment,which reads:"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".


Most critically important to be noted about the never overturned Dred Scott v.Sandford decision,though,this report notes,is that the US Supreme Count concocted its decision out of thin air—as the US Constitution doesn't have a single word or phrase in it saying black people aren't citizens—thus meaning that this momentous ruling that caused the American Civil War was made by adherents to the judicial philosophy called"Living Constitution"which claims the Constitution has a dynamic meaning,or it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes—but that is adamantly opposed by the adherents to the judicial philosophy called"Strict Construction"which says the Constitution says what it means,and means what it says—and if anyone doesn't like it,they can put forth an Amendment to change it.

关于从未被推翻的《德瑞德.斯科特五世》,值得注意的是最为重要的一点。不过,该报告指出,桑德福德案的判决是美国最高伯爵凭空捏造的,因为美国宪法中没有一个词或短语说黑人不是公民,这意味着这一引发美国内战的重大裁决是由"活宪法"(Living Constitution)司法哲学的拥护者做出的,这一司法哲学声称宪法具有动态意义
或者说,它具有一个有生命力的存在物的特性,因为它会改变,但这遭到了所谓"严格构建"(Strict Construction)司法哲学的信徒的坚决反对。"严格构建"指的是宪法说了它的意思,说了它的意思,如果有人不喜欢它,他们可以提出一项修正案来改变它。


For nearly 100-years,this report continues,the US Supreme Court has handed down decisions based on both the"Living Constitution"and"Strict Construction"judicial philosophies—all of which have been protected by the"Stare Decisis"legal doctrine—but whose beyond bizarre contradictions now sees such things as US Federal Courts upholding the"Strict Construction"ruling that babies killed in their mothers'wombs during violent attacks can be charged as murder—while at the same time,they support the"Living Constitution"ruling(Roe v.Wade)saying it's fine for a mother to kill this same baby in her womb by abortion.


  • 本文由 发表于 2019年5月16日11:23:33
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均来自网络,转载请务必保留本文链接