| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
 Posted: Mar 27, 2013 5:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
You didn't answer...you talked around in circles.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | That is my point that you don't seem to be getting. Let me review the points:
1. It is my understanding that the SCOTUS is not supposed to rule in direct conflict with the Constitution.
2. If they ruled to take away 1st Amendment rights, this would be a ruling directly against something explicitly protected by the Constitution.
3. You used Roe v Wade as an example of something they've ruled upon that goes against the Constitution.
4. How does Roe v Wade go against the Constitution when there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion? |
| Quote: | | You didn't answer...you talked around in circles. |
Please explain how I "talked around in circles" I can understand that you are confused and in over your head in discussing the constitution; particularly, when you have no idea what your opinions are based on, but I don't understand how I talked around in circles.
haha, ok I'll bite
1. impossible, they determine what is in the constitution AND how to interpret what is in the constitution(as previously stated)
2. see #1
3. correct
4. the USSC has no power to rule on issues that are inapplicable to the constitution, if the right to abort is not in the constitution, they cannot rule whether or not a law preventing it is constitutional.
You never answered several questions of mine above:
| Quote: | | If the constitution does not protect abortion how can they rule a law preventing it is unconstitutional? |
| Quote: | There is no right to abort except looking at it as the idea for personal liberty to decide what to do with your own body.
Where is this in the constitution? |
| Quote: | No it doesn't. I haven't read and studied many cases
So what are your opinions based on? What you assume? What you hear from the news? Natural rights? |
| Quote: | You're saying the SCOTUS can rule however they want and it becomes Consitutional and potentially fundamentally changes the Constitution itself?
Yes, that is how it works. I have tried to explain this to you on several different threads...however, in your mind the constitution doesn't even really matter (its all about natural rights on select issues) so who cares? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. impossible, they determine what is in the constitution AND how to interpret what is in the constitution(as previously stated)
|
And as I stated earlier, their job is to determine if the law they are reviewing and ruling upon is in conflict with the Constitution. If it is in conflict with the Constitution, they should overturn it. If it is not, they don't or it is a judgment call based on whether they think it applies indirectly, correct? But if something is in direct conflict with the Constitution, like removal of the 1st Amendment, they would be compelled to rule against it, correct?
| Quote: |
4. the USSC has no power to rule on issues that are inapplicable to the constitution, if the right to abort is not in the constitution, they cannot rule whether or not a law preventing it is constitutional.
|
OK, I still don't see how their ruling is in direct conflict with the Constitution, when there isn't anything in the Constitution regarding abortion. But, I think what you're trying to say here is they should have not ruled at all on the case, is that correct?
| Quote: |
If the constitution does not protect abortion how can they rule a law preventing it is unconstitutional?
|
Can they not rule based on an indirect application of abortion vs the Constitution?
| Quote: |
There is no right to abort except looking at it as the idea for personal liberty to decide what to do with your own body.
Where is this in the constitution?
|
It's not.
| Quote: |
No it doesn't. I haven't read and studied many cases
So what are your opinions based on? What you assume? What you hear from the news? Natural rights?
|
I've read about a few cases. I've read through the Constitution to understand how it was set up and what is supposed to be followed. I've read many articles from Constitutional scholars on how things are supposed to work. That is where my stance originates from. I've also read through the federalist papers.
| Quote: |
You're saying the SCOTUS can rule however they want and it becomes Consitutional and potentially fundamentally changes the Constitution itself?
Yes, that is how it works. I have tried to explain this to you on several different threads...however, in your mind the constitution doesn't even really matter (its all about natural rights on select issues) so who cares?
|
I'm not saying the Constitution does not matter. But, natural rights are a key element in what our FF's put together. Those rights are the basis for how they set everything else up so government was limited and the people were served by that government along with their rights being protected.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But if something is in direct conflict with the Constitution, like removal of the 1st Amendment, they would be compelled to rule against it, correct?
|
This is the last time I will state this, please read carefully: The USSC determines what the constitution means and how it applies to each case before them. If 5 justices determine that the 1st amendment does not apply in all cases, then it doesn't. This is not my opinion, this is how the system works. Think about it, if they say the 1st amendment does not apply in all cases who can tell them their interpretation is wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
OK, I still don't see how their ruling is in direct conflict with the Constitution, when there isn't anything in the Constitution regarding abortion.
|
What power do they have to rule on a state law that has nothing to do with the Constitution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jgriffith wrote: | | Quote: |
But if something is in direct conflict with the Constitution, like removal of the 1st Amendment, they would be compelled to rule against it, correct?
|
This is the last time I will state this, please read carefully: The USSC determines what the constitution means and how it applies to each case before them. If 5 justices determine that the 1st amendment does not apply in all cases, then it doesn't. This is not my opinion, this is how the system works. Think about it, if they say the 1st amendment does not apply in all cases who can tell them their interpretation is wrong? |
You're example is different. You're saying their may be a case in which they see the 1st Amendment isn't applicable. But, if Congress passed a law to completely eliminate the 1st Amendment from existence, in all cases, that would be a direct conflict with the Constitution. If the SCOTUS reviewed that case, they would be compelled to rule against it simply because it was in conflcit with the Constitution, correct?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
^wow
The question jgriffith posed: "who can tell them if their interpretation is wrong?" is the clearest he could possibly be.
SCOTUS is the court of last resort. Short of a constitutional amendment (and that is near impossible these days), nobody, and I mean NOBODY can override their rulings.
Get it?
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jgriffith wrote: | | Quote: |
OK, I still don't see how their ruling is in direct conflict with the Constitution, when there isn't anything in the Constitution regarding abortion.
|
What power do they have to rule on a state law that has nothing to do with the Constitution? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jgriffith wrote: | | Quote: |
OK, I still don't see how their ruling is in direct conflict with the Constitution, when there isn't anything in the Constitution regarding abortion.
|
What power do they have to rule on a state law that has nothing to do with the Constitution? |
OK, I see what you're trying to say now and why you brought in the 10th Amendment.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chavez wrote: | ^wow
The question jgriffith posed: "who can tell them if their interpretation is wrong?" is the clearest he could possibly be.
SCOTUS is the court of last resort. Short of a constitutional amendment (and that is near impossible these days), nobody, and I mean NOBODY can override their rulings.
Get it? |
Congress has the ability to modify the law that was ruled against in order to keep it from being ruled against again, though, correct?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that SCOTUS gets the final say on any contested legislation. If SCOTUS ruled against a law, that law would be invalidated but the legislators could pass a new adjusted version that would hopefully pass constitutional muster.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Congress has the ability to modify the law that was ruled against in order to keep it from being ruled against again, though, correct?
|
I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding this simple concept. Five justices can rule anyway they want to, about anything; furthermore, they can change their mind anytime they want to. Congress cannot prevent them from overturning any law, whether or not anyone thinks it is constitutional or not constitutional or in the constitution or not in the constitution. The only remedy is impeachment, or as FDR tried to do stack the bench. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, let's go back to what I had asked earlier. Can you show me a law that was clearly unconstitutional (like completely removing 1st Amendment rights) that the SCOTUS upheld?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
 insert brain explosion
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
What the SCOTUS rules is by definition constitutional.
There job is to define what is constitutional.
Read 10x then repeat.
Oh, and a good example of SC defining what is constituional is the Federal Income Tax. Which was ruled unconstitutional a number of times before finally being ruled as constituional.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Last edited by eeven73 on Mar 27, 2013 7:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | So, let's go back to what I had asked earlier. Can you show me a law that was clearly unconstitutional (like completely removing 1st Amendment rights) that the SCOTUS upheld? |
Completely removing all 1st Amendment rights? No, but they can if they want to, who can stop them? Limiting or expanding constitutional rights? There are hundreds, if you are not aware of them you live in a box.
I think you are just trolling at this point though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
All I'm asking for is an example, jgriffith. Show me a ruling where they upheld a law that directly conflicted with the Constitution.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eeven73 wrote: | What the SCOTUS rules is by definition constitutional.
There job is to define what is constitutional.
Read 10x then repeat.
Oh, and a good example of SC defining what is constituional is the Federal Income Tax. Which was ruled unconstitutional a number of times before finally being ruled as constituional. |
I thought their job was to determine if a law was in conflict with the Constitution. Now you;re saying they define Constitutionality? You mean they are charged with rewriting the Constitution to fit their concept of what it should be?
I wasn't asking what the SC defines as Constitutional. As I said to jgriffith, show me where they upheld a law that was directly in conlfict with the Constitution.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
FEDERAL INCOME TAX
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bethel School District v. Fraser, happy? There are literally hundreds of more cases that directly conflict with the constitution and/or that expand constitutional rights beyond what is written (see Miranda v. Arizona). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | Now you;re saying they define Constitutionality? You mean they are charged with rewriting the Constitution to fit their concept of what it should be?
|
It is obvious you are extremely unfamiliar with a long line of USSC court cases; particularly, the due process and search and seizure cases.
Again, you have to be trolling, that or extremely ignorant on the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eeven73 wrote: | | FEDERAL INCOME TAX |
How is it in direct conflict with the Constitution. Is there something in the Constitution that explicitly prohibits a Federal Income Tax?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bethel School District v. Fraser, happy?
|
How is this an example of the SCOTUS uphold a law that specifically conflicts with the Constitution. Didn't they rule that the suspension did not violate his rights. That wouldn't be upholding a law that conflicts with the Constitution the way I read it. It sounds more like them seeing that the 1st Amendment wasn't applicable in this case rather than upholding a law that clearly violates the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the Miranda case seems to be them upholding Constitutional rights rather than upholding a law that conflicts with those rights.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eeven73 wrote: | | insert brain explosion |
he got me too |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anyone have a GIF of that scene from Billy Madison (everyone in this room is now dumber...)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, how are you saying the 16th Amendment is in direct conflict with the Constitution, eeven?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, The constitution prior to the amendment. Hence, the amendment.
I am not inclined to get into a semantics or circular logic argument.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Constitution (pre-16th Amendment) states:
| Quote: |
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken
|
Which of these is the 16ht Amendment in direct conflict of?
They also followed the Constitutional Amendment process to put the Amendment in place.
I just don't see how you're coming up with the idea the 16th Amendment is in direct conflict with the Constitution and the SCOTUS upholding the law is subsequently in direct conflict.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
So you're saying the text of the 16th Amendment does not match up with the original Constitution. That is where you are saying it is in conflict?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read the two carefully.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I assume that means yes. That would explain why the SCOTUS overturned the law that was originally created, right? Then, Congress pushed it through as an Amendment instead of a law. That chages the whole game and at that point, it is not in conflict with the Constitution, because it followed the correct process for Amendment to the Constitution, correct?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eeven73 wrote: | | FEDERAL INCOME TAX |
I refuse to read this entire thread but this quote brings me to my point. The whole reason that marriage is a civil issue was that England used it to impose taxation. No real separation in church of England and the government at the time, but I thought we dealt with that here...
I'm all for same-sex and opposite sex civil unions and getting the church out of my state or vise-versa.
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nor*Cal, I think most of us here agree with that, and would like to see it resolved that way.
Too bad there are piles of "Christians" out there that refuse to detach their beliefs with law, and we end up with problems like this that ultimately detract from other real and pressing issues.
Imagine the freak-out from the religios if we had active legislation seeking to remove the word "marriage" from law. It would be epic.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
