View Full Version : For the Idiots..Oops......Strict Constitutionalists.
Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too.
The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct?
:thanks:
jimnyc
02-09-2012, 07:35 PM
Sadly, I agree with you. If it's cool to toss out the peoples vote on one issue, any votes on other issues should be handled in a similar manner. As a citizen, just hope the decision is what you agree with!
Sadly, I agree with you. If it's cool to toss out the peoples vote on one issue, any votes on other issues should be handled in a similar manner. As a citizen, just hope the decision is what you agree with!
Whats the over/under on how many will flip flop on this issue now?
ConHog
02-09-2012, 07:38 PM
Sadly, I agree with you. If it's cool to toss out the peoples vote on one issue, any votes on other issues should be handled in a similar manner. As a citizen, just hope the decision is what you agree with!
You're right Jim, Every issue SHOULD be handled the same way and be subject to judicial review. That of course does NOT mean that the judicial review should result in the same outcome every time.
I don't know that the OP is smart enough to grasp the difference, but I am confident that you do.
You're right Jim, Every issue SHOULD be handled the same way and be subject to judicial review. That of course does NOT mean that the judicial review should result in the same outcome every time.
I don't know that the OP is smart enough to grasp the difference, but I am confident that you do.
Its only cool if it goes your way, right border jumper lover?
Apparently you are the one not smart enough to grasp the difference, if there is one.
pegwinn
02-09-2012, 10:23 PM
Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too.
The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct?
:thanks:
I will bet dollars to donuts that I am about as strict on reading the constitution as you can get and not be famous.
So, where did you get the idea that I liked Obamacare?
And, since when has the will of the majority ever mattered in US History?
fj1200
02-09-2012, 11:32 PM
Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too.
The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct?
Not surprisingly you muffed the whole premise.
I will bet dollars to donuts that I am about as strict on reading the constitution as you can get and not be famous.
So, where did you get the idea that I liked Obamacare?
And, since when has the will of the majority ever mattered in US History?
Reread the op and really attempt to comprehend this time
jimnyc
02-10-2012, 11:15 AM
And, since when has the will of the majority ever mattered in US History?
In just about every election?
Not surprisingly you muffed the whole premise.
Who has 3 on the over under flip flop?
fj1200
02-10-2012, 11:19 AM
Who has 3 on the over under flip flop?
I'm thinking you'll go as high as you need to on the flips. Whatever twisting you need to do to feel better about yourself.
I'm thinking you'll go as high as you need to on the flips. Whatever twisting you need to do to feel better about yourself.
Being caught in a "got ya" sucks, don't it?
Gunny
02-10-2012, 11:28 AM
Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too.
The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct?
:thanks:
Wow. Are YOU ever Johnny-on-the-spot.
Try defining "strict Constitutionalist". Last I checked, it doesn't say a WORD about it being okay for lib judges to overturn the will of the people. Might want to take a class on US Government while you're at it. The US is a representative republic, not an absolute democracy. The "will of people" puts the people in office who are supposed to represent them. They are not Constitutionally bound to do so. If that was the case, Hillary Clinton would be President, not Barrack Obama. Two Democratic superdelegates voted AGAINST the will of their repective constituencies; which, gave the nod to der kommisar.
fj1200
02-10-2012, 11:30 AM
Being caught in a "got ya" sucks, don't it?
Dunno, I'll certainly ask for advice from you when it happens though. But I'm guessing that internalizing all the shame that you've been subjected to is not the way to go though. Likely the culprit for the extreme amount of self loathing that you exhibit.
logroller
02-10-2012, 11:32 AM
Reread the op and really attempt to comprehend this time
Read Federalist #10.
Wow. Are YOU ever Johnny-on-the-spot.
Try defining "strict Constitutionalist". Last I checked, it doesn't say a WORD about it being okay for lib judges to overturn the will of the people. Might want to take a class on US Government while you're at it. The US is a representative republic, not an absolute democracy. The "will of people" puts the people in office who are supposed to represent them. They are not Constitutionally bound to do so. If that was the case, Hillary Clinton would be President, not Barrack Obama. Two Democratic superdelegates voted AGAINST the will of their repective constituencies; which, gave the nod to der kommisar.
Gunny try and keep up.
The constitutionalists think its ok for the lib judges to overthrow the will of the people on gay marriage. If its the will of the people to repeal Obamacare(a majority is against it) shouldn't we just suck it up because we can't have "majority rules", right?
Dunno, I'll certainly ask for advice from you when it happens though. But I'm guessing that internalizing all the shame that you've been subjected to is not the way to go though. Likely the culprit for the extreme amount of self loathing that you exhibit.
Go ahead, ask advice, it happened.
I think you're best attribute is psychobabble, you are fucking great at it!
Read Federalist #10.
Got it, don't agree with it, in fact the Constitution should be an ever evolving document, nothing set in stone.
What you get with this type of thinking is the tyrrany of a minority through backhanded means.
ConHog
02-10-2012, 03:51 PM
Gunny try and keep up.
The constitutionalists think its ok for the lib judges to overthrow the will of the people on gay marriage. If its the will of the people to repeal Obamacare(a majority is against it) shouldn't we just suck it up because we can't have "majority rules", right?
You do realize that so called conservative judges also interpret the COTUS nearly every day as well , right?
You do realize that so called conservative judges also interpret the COTUS nearly every day as well , right?
Cite 1 case, just 1 Nancy, where a conservative judge or panel of judges has overturned a popular vote.
fj1200
02-10-2012, 05:04 PM
Go ahead, ask advice, it happened.
I think you're best attribute is psychobabble, you are fucking great at it!
I know it happened, you live it every day. The problem is that it you let it control your psyche.
Got it, don't agree with it, in fact the Constitution should be an ever evolving document, nothing set in stone.
What you get with this type of thinking is the tyrrany of a minority through backhanded means.
There it is. The Constitution should evolve to follow your opinion eh? I happen to like the freedom of speech clause even though it does apply to you.
logroller
02-10-2012, 05:47 PM
Got it, don't agree with it, in fact the Constitution should be an ever evolving document, nothing set in stone.
What you get with this type of thinking is the tyrrany of a minority through backhanded means.
Of course you think laws should be weak and without foundation-- it fits your reasoning to a tee!
ConHog
02-10-2012, 08:12 PM
Cite 1 case, just 1 Nancy, where a conservative judge or panel of judges has overturned a popular vote.
KABOOM
Read this article
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023563.php
feel free do try t deny the truth, it's what you're best at.
pegwinn
02-10-2012, 09:29 PM
Reread the op and really attempt to comprehend this time
Ok, let's try it again.
Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too. Lessee, title of the thread and lack of any intelligent targeting would mean this is a blanket statement addressing those of us who read the constitution literally. I guess next time you ought to put some actual thought into what you write.
The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct? Yep. Same flaws in this statement as well. Not really a great communicator are you? I really have no beef with you. But if you got something to say, then say it so it isn't misunderstood.
:thanks:
In just about every election?
Will of the people doesn't matter in Presidential elections. It's the electors and electoral college. The point is that we are not a democracy. Mob rule doesn't mean it's right. If we catered to the will of the majority some things like women voting, blacks voting, blacks not being slaves, handicapped folks having near equal access would not have occurred when they did if at all. I'm not a big fan of activist judges myself, but the OP either likes the idea of mob rule or needs to take a course in clear writing.
KABOOM
Read this article
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023563.php
feel free do try t deny the truth, it's what you're best at.
Apparently I have to define the term "popular vote" for you.
Jimmy, where in the fuck do you find these dimwits?
Ok, let's try it again.
Will of the people doesn't matter in Presidential elections. It's the electors and electoral college. The point is that we are not a democracy. Mob rule doesn't mean it's right. If we catered to the will of the majority some things like women voting, blacks voting, blacks not being slaves, handicapped folks having near equal access would not have occurred when they did if at all. I'm not a big fan of activist judges myself, but the OP either likes the idea of mob rule or needs to take a course in clear writing.
I've had enough of the caterwauling................should we let Obamacare stand on your premise of "mob rule shouldn't stand" or not?
Can't just one of you guys answer the op question?
Is stalling and bullshit your only defense?
pegwinn
02-10-2012, 09:50 PM
I've had enough of the caterwauling........
Really. Talk about irrelivent. If you've had enough then take your toys and go to another playground.
I've had enough of the caterwauling................should we let Obamacare stand on your premise of "mob rule shouldn't stand" or not?
It's not "should we". Obamacare will stand or fall based on how much you leverage your anger and properly motivate your elected reps. You don't like that answer? Tough shit. Amend the Constitution to allow binding referendums in a way that excludes the judiciary. When you manage to accomplish that, be ready for a shit storm as the stupid trogs start to seriously vote in the bread and circus.
Really. Talk about irrelivent. If you've had enough then take your toys and go to another playground.
It's not "should we". Obamacare will stand or fall based on how much you leverage your anger and properly motivate your elected reps. You don't like that answer? Tough shit. Amend the Constitution to allow binding referendums in a way that excludes the judiciary. When you manage to accomplish that, be ready for a shit storm as the stupid trogs start to seriously vote in the bread and circus.
Haven't even brought out the toys yet.
Not really a direct answer, another skirt. Not sure if you said it but our represenatives don't take an oath to us, right?
pegwinn
02-10-2012, 10:05 PM
Haven't even brought out the toys yet.
Not really a direct answer, another skirt. Not sure if you said it but our represenatives don't take an oath to us, right?
Funny, I always thought you were smarter than this. Oh well. Perhaps I was mistaken.
The answer was very direct. Again, if you didn't like it.... tough shit.
Perhaps you should devote a brain cell or two to exactly what can be done to properly motivate your elected reps.
Funny, I always thought you were smarter than this. Oh well. Perhaps I was mistaken.
The answer was very direct. Again, if you didn't like it.... tough shit.
Perhaps you should devote a brain cell or two to exactly what can be done to properly motivate your elected reps.
Nah it was a skirt, the retard savant down the street even said so. Screaming it from the rooftops doesn't change that fact.
Please answer the op: if we are not going to allow majority opinion and votes to stand on queer marriage should we also apply the same to the majority opinion on Obamacare?
pegwinn
02-10-2012, 10:52 PM
Nah it was a skirt, the retard savant down the street even said so. Screaming it from the rooftops doesn't change that fact...
Talking to yourself again? That's one way to get someone to agree with you I guess.
... Please answer the op:...
Already did. Not my fault you skipped out of reading class.
...if we are not going to allow ...
First flaw: You obviously don't know how the system works. "We" don't allow shit. "They" don't work for "us". If you really don't get that, then discussion is pointless as it will be over your head.
majority opinion and votes to stand on queer marriage should we also apply the same to the majority opinion on Obamacare?
Second Flaw: Assumption that "this = that". Here is a clue. Referendums are just like any other form of legislation. They are subject to judicial review. So, without meaning to bore the others who actually comprehend simple civics, just because it was written or voted on doesn't mean it will stand. Look up "Checks and Balances".
Hint: It has nothing to do with banking.
Properly state your case, form an argument, or ask an intelligent question. I will check back on your progress tomorrow.
Dismissed.
ConHog
02-10-2012, 11:00 PM
I've had enough of the caterwauling................should we let Obamacare stand on your premise of "mob rule shouldn't stand" or not?
HUH? No we shouldn't let it stand, but the reason is because it is unfucking constitutional. Has nothing to do with mob rule nor judicial activism.
But here's one for you buttercup, if enough people voted for a US constitutional amendment granting the federal government the power to mandate health insurance for all, too bad............
Now, please come back with "California constitution" so that I can add to your civics lessons by explaining to you that state constitutions can not violate the US COTUS. Not even if the majority in a state want it to be so. Otherwise the southern states surely would have passed their own state amendments legalizing slavery back in the 1860s. At least some of them would have.
DragonStryk72
02-11-2012, 06:52 AM
Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too.
The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct?
:thanks:
Except that it's not Constitutional. Way to go, OCA, you screwed yourself on your own thread title.
DragonStryk72
02-11-2012, 07:00 AM
Sadly, I agree with you. If it's cool to toss out the peoples vote on one issue, any votes on other issues should be handled in a similar manner. As a citizen, just hope the decision is what you agree with!
so then, according to you Jim, women and black people shouldn't be able to vote? Those were not the popular opinions of their time. As well, a majority supported slavery when it was abolished, so that made it right? If we wanna play that game, Jim, it's a long and tortured road.
The will of the people does not exceed the value of personal liberty that our founders felt was the core belief of our country, that we were possessed of inherent rights, endowed by our Creator with them from birth, and that no government has the right to take those rights. Unless of course you believe we should still be a proud English colony?
Is that completely taking your opinion out of context? Oh hell yes, but then, that's the idea of OCA's thread here.
Gunny
02-11-2012, 08:24 AM
Gunny try and keep up.
The constitutionalists think its ok for the lib judges to overthrow the will of the people on gay marriage. If its the will of the people to repeal Obamacare(a majority is against it) shouldn't we just suck it up because we can't have "majority rules", right?
Who exactly are "the Constitutionalists"?
Why don't YOU try and keep up? You didn't address a single point I made; rather, went back to your first-grade level stereotypying, flinging a non sequitur out there to see who'd bite. It would serve you well in the future to possess at least a modicum of comprehension of that which you presume to speak of.
Except that it's not Constitutional. Way to go, OCA, you screwed yourself on your own thread title.
Nope, reread Dragon.
Who exactly are "the Constitutionalists"?
Why don't YOU try and keep up? You didn't address a single point I made; rather, went back to your first-grade level stereotypying, flinging a non sequitur out there to see who'd bite. It would serve you well in the future to possess at least a modicum of comprehension of that which you presume to speak of.
Answer the question Gunsel rather than deflect, I expect better from staff members.
Wait, you actually made a point?:link:
fj1200
02-11-2012, 07:02 PM
Nope, reread Dragon.
You know, when everyone says you muffed the OP... You might want to do a rewrite. :slap:
logroller
02-11-2012, 07:29 PM
You know, when everyone says you muffed the OP... You might want to do a rewrite. :slap:
You mean the majority. Oh the irony.:laugh2:
ConHog
02-11-2012, 07:43 PM
You mean the majority. Oh the irony.:laugh2:
Does that means it's natural? :dance:
You know, when everyone says you muffed the OP... You might want to do a rewrite. :slap:
You know, I got the book on you, your M.O., pointed out to me yesterday by a dear friend here...........consider yourself Mr. Irrelevant.
jimnyc
02-11-2012, 08:53 PM
You know, I got the book on you, your M.O., pointed out to me yesterday by a dear friend here...........consider yourself Mr. Irrelevant.
You don't have any "dear friends" you lying POS!! :laugh2:
Seriously though, I hope no one thinks your comment is from or about me. I think FJ is damn smart, and I've had quite a few good debates with him, I might have even lost one in there somewhere. :)
ConHog
02-11-2012, 08:55 PM
You don't have any "dear friends" you lying POS!! :laugh2:
Seriously though, I hope no one thinks your comment is from or about me. I think FJ is damn smart, and I've had quite a few good debates with him, I might have even lost one in there somewhere. :)
Was whether FJ is smart or not even up for debate? I thought the fact that he is was in fact a fact.
You don't have any "dear friends" you lying POS!! :laugh2:
Seriously though, I hope no one thinks your comment is from or about me. I think FJ is damn smart, and I've had quite a few good debates with him, I might have even lost one in there somewhere. :)
It ain't from you, in fact its from someone whom i'm finding out has a "dark" side................I like it.
Lets just say, Fj isn't always arguing what he believes.
fj1200
02-11-2012, 09:27 PM
You know, I got the book on you, your M.O., pointed out to me yesterday by a dear friend here...........consider yourself Mr. Irrelevant.
Ooh, do tell.
fj1200
02-11-2012, 09:30 PM
Seriously though, I hope no one thinks your comment is from or about me. I think FJ is damn smart, and I've had quite a few good debates with him, I might have even lost one in there somewhere. :)
Was whether FJ is smart or not even up for debate? I thought the fact that he is was in fact a fact.
I love you guys. But not that kind of love oca. :dance:
It ain't from you, in fact its from someone whom i'm finding out has a "dark" side................I like it.
Lets just say, Fj isn't always arguing what he believes.
Hmm, you've never crossed the line?
Ooh, do tell.
Nah, you just reveal it with each post, got it in a pos rep comment though................just sayin'.
fj1200
02-11-2012, 09:33 PM
Nah, you just reveal it with each post, got it in a pos rep comment though................just sayin'.
Goodness gracious, don't break any rules then. :beer:
Goodness gracious, don't break any rules then. :beer:
Oh nooo Fj, you aren't worth all that.
Do you always believe the positions you take? Or do you take positions sometimes just for the sake of argument?
fj1200
02-11-2012, 09:39 PM
Oh nooo Fj, you aren't worth all that.
Phew.
Do you always believe the positions you take? Or do you take positions sometimes just for the sake of argument?
Mostly. Rarely.
Gunny
02-11-2012, 10:12 PM
Answer the question Gunsel rather than deflect, I expect better from staff members.
Wait, you actually made a point?:link:
I did. I schooled your ass, matter of fact. You want to deflect to calling me names or pretending I haven't dropped the hammer on you, or what?
You are what you are, and your argument is about as good.
ConHog
02-11-2012, 10:24 PM
Phew.
Mostly. Rarely.
I'd have to go and look to be sure, but isn't he one of those who hammered me for arguing that even though I don't believe gays are born gay we don't know that's a fact?
logroller
02-12-2012, 02:22 AM
Nah, you just reveal it with each post, got it in a pos rep comment though................just sayin'.
Skeletons in FJ's closet don't concern me, and you getting pos rep should be posted in the conspiracy theory forum---just sayin'!:poke:
I did. I schooled your ass, matter of fact. You want to deflect to calling me names or pretending I haven't dropped the hammer on you, or what?
You are what you are, and your argument is about as good.
No you didn't.
Should we just live with Obamacare the way it looks like we are going to have to live with queer marriage because we don't operate on majority rules in America.
Its a simple yes or no Gunsel.
Gunny
02-12-2012, 10:43 AM
No you didn't.
Should we just live with Obamacare the way it looks like we are going to have to live with queer marriage because we don't operate on majority rules in America.
Its a simple yes or no Gunsel.
Yeah, I did. As far as a simple yes or no ... you never answered my original question to you. Why? Because you don't know. You're so busy stereotyping and living in your own private little world, you couldn't possible know the answer to the qeustion.
Yet you attack, and slur "Constitutionalists" anyway, like a fucking rattler in the blind.
But I don't expect a simple yes or no from you. Nor that you could even address your own topic with any kind of informed, intelligent reasoning. I damned sure don't expect you to admit you've had your ass served so bad it'll take 2 months and soothing salve of your choice for you to heal. You'll just sit around in your usual little "La-La Land" of denial where for some reason, you are great.
Deep down inside, you know you aren't. You couldn't debate your way out of my 6 years old's bedroom, much less anything beyond.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 10:46 AM
No you didn't.
Should we just live with Obamacare the way it looks like we are going to have to live with queer marriage because we don't operate on majority rules in America.
Its a simple yes or no Gunsel.
You're missing the central point, probably purposely, Obamacare is unconstitutional, gay marriage is not.
You're missing the central point, probably purposely, Obamacare is unconstitutional, gay marriage is not.
Prove that Obamacare is unconstitutional along with queer marriage, the equal rights clause doesn't pertain to either.
Yeah, I did. As far as a simple yes or no ... you never answered my original question to you. Why? Because you don't know. You're so busy stereotyping and living in your own private little world, you couldn't possible know the answer to the qeustion.
Yet you attack, and slur "Constitutionalists" anyway, like a fucking rattler in the blind.
But I don't expect a simple yes or no from you. Nor that you could even address your own topic with any kind of informed, intelligent reasoning. I damned sure don't expect you to admit you've had your ass served so bad it'll take 2 months and soothing salve of your choice for you to heal. You'll just sit around in your usual little "La-La Land" of denial where for some reason, you are great.
Deep down inside, you know you aren't. You couldn't debate your way out of my 6 years old's bedroom, much less anything beyond.
For chrissakes you blather on more than Psycho used to.....just answer the question for the love of God!
ConHog
02-12-2012, 10:56 AM
Prove that Obamacare is unconstitutional along with queer marriage, the equal rights clause doesn't pertain to either.
What a softball.
There is no provision in the COTUS for allowing the federal government to dictate that people must buy health care insurance so the federal government doing so is unconstitutional.
Likewise there is no provision concerning MARRIAGE in the COTUS so the federal government attempting to define marriage either way is in fact also unconstitutional. That stands whether they try to make it legal or illegal. They have no standing to define it either way.
Wow. Are YOU ever Johnny-on-the-spot.
Try defining "strict Constitutionalist". Last I checked, it doesn't say a WORD about it being okay for lib judges to overturn the will of the people. Might want to take a class on US Government while you're at it. The US is a representative republic, not an absolute democracy. The "will of people" puts the people in office who are supposed to represent them. They are not Constitutionally bound to do so. If that was the case, Hillary Clinton would be President, not Barrack Obama. Two Democratic superdelegates voted AGAINST the will of their repective constituencies; which, gave the nod to der kommisar.
Strict consitutionalist=those who view the constitution as unbendable.
In this context its those who are saying that on queer marriage our represenatives in state and the federal government should not listen to the will of the people, the people that elected them, that they are not "constitutionally bound" to listen to them. That a panel of 3 lib judges should be allowed to override the wishes of the people because that is how the constitution works.
I've said it before, actually way back during Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the constitution is not a suicide pact, if it is fucked up in spots then it should be changed. In this situation, its fucked up and should be changed.
Now Gunsel, your yes or no answer? I don't want to hear any blather, only a simple fucking yes or no..........don't piss me off.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 11:06 AM
Strict consitutionalist=those who view the constitution as unbendable.
In this context its those who are saying that on queer marriage our represenatives in state and the federal government should not listen to the will of the people, the people that elected them, that they are not "constitutionally bound" to listen to them. That a panel of 3 lib judges should be allowed to override the wishes of the people because that is how the constitution works.
I've said it before, actually way back during Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the constitution is not a suicide pact, if it is fucked up in spots then it should be changed. In this situation, its fucked up and should be changed.
Under YOUR theory, South Carolina could hold a voter referendum to bring back slavery and hey that's the will of the people if they vote for it.... Yes or no?
What a softball.
There is no provision in the COTUS for allowing the federal government to dictate that people must buy health care insurance so the federal government doing so is unconstitutional.
Likewise there is no provision concerning MARRIAGE in the COTUS so the federal government attempting to define marriage either way is in fact also unconstitutional. That stands whether they try to make it legal or illegal. They have no standing to define it either way.
Exactly, new territory, we'll define it as we go.
Apparently thought the courts on Obamacare don't feel the way you do.
Under YOUR theory, South Carolina could hold a voter referendum to bring back slavery and hey that's the will of the people if they vote for it.... Yes or no?
Nope, protected minority.........BORN MINORITY.
Get it?
ConHog
02-12-2012, 11:19 AM
Nope, protected minority.........BORN MINORITY.
Get it?
First of all, show me where a minority has to be defined as a "born minority" before their rights are protected.
First of all, show me where a minority has to be defined as a "born minority" before their rights are protected.
Minority isn't defined either way but logic would tell you that minority=unchangeable.
Or are you willing to come out today and state that drug addicts and pedophiles should be protected minorities if they desired so?
ConHog
02-12-2012, 11:29 AM
Minority isn't defined either way but logic would tell you that minority=unchangeable.
Or are you willing to come out today and state that drug addicts and pedophiles should be protected minorities if they desired so?
Absolutely I'll come out today and state unequivocally that even drug addicts and pedophiles have rights and those rights should be guarded.
See how that works, I don't approve of their activities and or crimes, but they still have rights.
Absolutely I'll come out today and state unequivocally that even drug addicts and pedophiles have rights and those rights should be guarded.
See how that works, I don't approve of their activities and or crimes, but they still have rights.
As a classified minority?
ConHog
02-12-2012, 11:43 AM
As a classified minority?
Seeings as how I believe the whole "classified minority" is unconstitutional, no. I believe that ALL men , and women, deserve EQUAL protection under the law.
Seeings as how I believe the whole "classified minority" is unconstitutional, no. I believe that ALL men , and women, deserve EQUAL protection under the law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/minority
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_majority_rule_and_minority_rights_incorpo rated_into_the_US_constitution
There is no definition of "minority" in the constitution, this is something that is being defined as time goes by...............logic tells you that it should be something unchangeable like skin color, ethnicity......or else everybody will be a fucking mionority and chaos will reign.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 12:39 PM
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/minority
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_majority_rule_and_minority_rights_incorpo rated_into_the_US_constitution
There is no definition of "minority" in the constitution, this is something that is being defined as time goes by...............logic tells you that it should be something unchangeable like skin color, ethnicity......or else everybody will be a fucking mionority and chaos will reign.
You're right, it's not mentioned in the COTUS, so the feds have no business defining it. Now of course an Amendment would rectify that situation, but barring an amendment to the COTUS CRA is unconstitutional.
You're right, it's not mentioned in the COTUS, so the feds have no business defining it. Now of course an Amendment would rectify that situation, but barring an amendment to the COTUS CRA is unconstitutional.
So then we can safely say that its ok to discriminate against Blacks, Mexicans, Women etc. etc. etc.?
ConHog
02-12-2012, 12:58 PM
So then we can safely say that its ok to discriminate against Blacks, Mexicans, Women etc. etc. etc.?
I believe that it should be. Now that doesn't mean lynching them, harrassing them, paying them differently if you DO hire them, etc etc. Nor does it apply to the government. But I firmly believe that if you own a business you should be able to hire who you want, and serve who you want without the government telling you otherwise.
I believe that it should be. Now that doesn't mean lynching them, harrassing them, paying them differently if you DO hire them, etc etc. Nor does it apply to the government. But I firmly believe that if you own a business you should be able to hire who you want, and serve who you want without the government telling you otherwise.
Wow, what a great Amerikan you are...........not.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 01:08 PM
Wow, what a great Amerikan you are...........not.
Why do you say that? If you own a car and have it up for sale, do you believe the government ought be able to dictate that you can't disqualify certain people from buying it?
I believe that it should be. Now that doesn't mean lynching them, harrassing them, paying them differently if you DO hire them, etc etc. Nor does it apply to the government. But I firmly believe that if you own a business you should be able to hire who you want, and serve who you want without the government telling you otherwise.
If you own a restaurant do you believe you should be able to hang a sign outside that says "for Whites only" and refuse service to all others?
ConHog
02-12-2012, 01:11 PM
If you own a restaurant do you believe you should be able to hang a sign outside that says "for Whites only" and refuse service to all others?
If you're that stupid, or unconcerned about making money. You bet. It's YOUR restaurant, you should be able to serve anyone you like. Of course blacks/whites/Mexicans anyone else who doesn't approve likewise has the right to ridicule you for that or avoid doing business with you.
Why do you say that? If you own a car and have it up for sale, do you believe the government ought be able to dictate that you can't disqualify certain people from buying it?
Because you are for legalized discrimination of ACTUAL minorities.
I mean you are so fucked up, you have it all backwards, you want to defend the rights of queers(a community of choice) and think the common business owner should be able to discriminate at will against minorities(a community by birth).
:cuckoo:
If you're that stupid, or unconcerned about making money. You bet. It's YOUR restaurant, you should be able to serve anyone you like. Of course blacks/whites/Mexicans anyone else who doesn't approve likewise has the right to ridicule you for that or avoid doing business with you.
I believe the SCOTUS ruled otherwise.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 01:18 PM
Because you are for legalized discrimination of ACTUAL minorities.
I mean you are so fucked up, you have it all backwards, you want to defend the rights of queers(a community of choice) and think the common business owner should be able to discriminate at will against minorities(a community by birth).
:cuckoo:
If you will actually read what I wrote, you will see that I very specifically stated that I don't believe the government should be able to discriminate. Kick government out of marriage and your church can discriminate gays all the live long day and refuse to marry them, good for them.........
ConHog
02-12-2012, 01:19 PM
I believe the SCOTUS ruled otherwise.
SCOTUS isn't infallible. So while I will live within the current law, I don't agree with it.
LuvRPgrl
02-12-2012, 07:02 PM
Whats the over/under on how many will flip flop on this issue now?
although I agree with your leading post in this thread, I doubt you, or most people even know what flip flopping is.
certainly the general public doesnt.
SCOTUS isn't infallible. So while I will live within the current law, I don't agree with it.
Ok, let me see if I have this straight.............you are for legalized discrimination?:cuckoo:
LuvRPgrl
02-12-2012, 07:26 PM
Ok, let me see if I have this straight.............you are for legalized discrimination?:cuckoo:
at least you are consistent.
OCA = One Consistent Asshole
at least you are consistent.
OCA = One Consistent Asshole
Yawn
ConHog
02-12-2012, 07:29 PM
Ok, let me see if I have this straight.............you are for legalized discrimination?:cuckoo:
I am absolutely for the government staying out of my business when they don't have a right to be there.
Say I own a restaraunt and I only want to serve 22 year old blond women of a certain endowment. How does that affect ANYONE (except Jim who no doubt would be trying every conceivable trick in the book to get in the door) in a negative way?
ConHog
02-12-2012, 07:30 PM
at least you are consistent.
OCA = One Consistent Asshole
Must spread yada yada.............
pegwinn
02-12-2012, 09:48 PM
Strict consitutionalist=those who view the constitution as unbendable.
In this context its those who are saying that on queer marriage our represenatives in state and the federal government should not listen to the will of the people, the people that elected them, that they are not "constitutionally bound" to listen to them. That a panel of 3 lib judges should be allowed to override the wishes of the people because that is how the constitution works.
I've said it before, actually way back during Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the constitution is not a suicide pact, if it is fucked up in spots then it should be changed. In this situation, its fucked up and should be changed.
Your definition is not bad. A bit loose for my taste, but, it is workable if all agree on the details.
That's where you messed up. Your "context" is laughable as it attempts to set up an "If/Then" scenario that is rigged.
Pretty transparent.
Question for you: What is The Right Way To Read The Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33835-The-Right-Way-To-Read-The-Constitution&highlight=verbatim)
ConHog
02-12-2012, 09:55 PM
Your definition is not bad. A bit loose for my taste, but, it is workable if all agree on the details.
That's where you messed up. Your "context" is laughable as it attempts to set up an "If/Then" scenario that is rigged.
Pretty transparent.
Question for you: What is The Right Way To Read The Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33835-The-Right-Way-To-Read-The-Constitution&highlight=verbatim)
I generally believe the COTUS should be followed to the letter. But the problem is some of those letters are in fact uber ambiguous.
General welfare. You can't argue that there is NOWAY the founders meant welfare as we know it, just as an example.
So I judge a lot of what the government does by results, not by "OMG is that constitutional." I think that is completely impractical.
pegwinn
02-12-2012, 10:02 PM
I generally believe the COTUS should be followed to the letter. But the problem is some of those letters are in fact uber ambiguous.
General welfare. You can't argue that there is NOWAY the founders meant welfare as we know it, just as an example.
So I judge a lot of what the government does by results, not by "OMG is that constitutional." I think that is completely impractical.
You are creating the slippery slope. The problem is that we haven't just slipped, we've swerved off the highway and over the cliff.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 10:05 PM
You are creating the slippery slope. The problem is that we haven't just slipped, we've swerved off the highway and over the cliff.
That's what the Courts are for, and that is why it so important that we really think about who we are going to elect, especially as President.
But you DO admit that the COTUS requires at least some interpretation don't you?
Gunny
02-12-2012, 10:06 PM
You are creating the slippery slope. The problem is that we haven't just slipped, we've swerved off the highway and over the cliff.
He fancies himself some kind of "moderate". What he is is a fence-rider. He'll land on whichever side wins. I love people that can't make a decision. Especially in a combat situation.
pegwinn
02-12-2012, 10:12 PM
That's what the Courts are for, and that is why it so important that we really think about who we are going to elect, especially as President.
But you DO admit that the COTUS requires at least some interpretation don't you?
Nope. Nada. Uh uH, nyet, nein, no, naw, hail naw, no way, can't see it, negatory, negative, and the ever popular No effen way.
Literal reading. If we don't like what it says verbatim, then amend it.
Edit: The only outside doc I will seriously consider would be a dictionary from the same era. The closest I can find online is the 1825 websters.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 10:35 PM
He fancies himself some kind of "moderate". What he is is a fence-rider. He'll land on whichever side wins. I love people that can't make a decision. Especially in a combat situation.
That's unfair and untrue Gunny. I have my convictions. Just because they don't jive with yours doesn't mean I can't make a decision.
ConHog
02-12-2012, 10:37 PM
Nope. Nada. Uh uH, nyet, nein, no, naw, hail naw, no way, can't see it, negatory, negative, and the ever popular No effen way.
Literal reading. If we don't like what it says verbatim, then amend it.
Edit: The only outside doc I will seriously consider would be a dictionary from the same era. The closest I can find online is the 1825 websters.
well, we disagree. Apparently so did the fathers since they created an entire branch of government to interpret the document.
IF it were so easy to say okay A) says B) then there wouldn't be all this confusion.
logroller
02-13-2012, 03:17 AM
Prove that Obamacare is unconstitutional along with queer marriage, the equal rights clause doesn't pertain to either.
Well, in weighing my own capacity to reason along with the reasoning of a federal court, I'm inclined to think that the equal protections clause does, in fact, apply to the latter. But good luck framing the issue to suit your taste.
avatar4321
02-13-2012, 03:33 AM
Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too.
The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct?
I'd respond. But after reading this several times, I have no freakin clue what you are trying to say. Since when are strict constitutionalists alright with lib judges overturning the will of the people? Especially when they overturned a Constitutional Amendment? And why on earth would strict constitutionalists be alright with Obamacare? Especially since that was overwhelmingly opposed by the people and forced on us through unconstitutional gimmicks of Congress. If we were following the Constitution, even outside it's blatant unconstitutionality, the same bill was never actually passed by both chambers. Obama and the Democrat leadership passed a separate bill in each chamber and them "deemed" it to be one for convenience sake. That way they didn't actually have to pass the same bill in both chambers as Constitutionally required.
Are you seriously equating a Constitutional Amendment voted on directly by the people and an unconstitutional piece of legislation that was questionably deemed to be have passed? They are apples and oranges.
logroller
02-13-2012, 03:49 AM
Yawn
Logical reasoning and rational thought makes OCA sleepy.
fj1200
02-13-2012, 10:24 AM
Fixoring for clarity of argument
For those of whom I vehemently disagree, you who consider themselves Strict Constructionists...
As it would appear that you find acceptable liberal judges who will overturn an exercise in direct democracy on an important issue of the day, i.e. gay marriage, and giving those who wield the levers of government the last say... then I would posit that you are in agreement with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.
(Since you are ok with lib judges overturning the will of the people on queer marriage and government having the last say..................then I guess you are ok with Obamacare too.)
As indicated by recent polling the majority of the people are against Obamacare and desire that it be repealed. Should that matter? The majority do not have a direct say; correct?
(The overwhelming majority of people last I heard were against Obamacare but that doesn't matter, does it? The majority cannot decide, correct?)
While I do consider myself a Strict Constructionist I find your questions interesting but underneath lay your faulty premises. While some issues are clearly acceptable for citizens to decide in a referendum, they are not able to do so in a matter that would violate the constitution. Some duly appointed members of the judiciary have decided that in this case, subject to appeal of course, that is in fact the issue. You have recently declared that the Constitution should be a bendable document which many would argue that is exactly what those judges of liberal orient have done. There in-lies the contradiction in your own position; Your desire for a bendable document is arguably in line with the desire of those who overturned the law that you support.
Now, regarding the polling regarding Obamacare; Polling does not in fact equate to a vote on whether a particular policy should be instituted or repealed. If you are now arguing that we should take into account a poll when deciding on policy then I would submit the following poll for your consideration.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vqf79nrpfewws7ibh-1u-q.gif
It would appear that gay marriage is gaining support of the population at large. This data of course does not equate to an actual vote but it does identify the changing opinions on the subject.
As far as your argument goes; legislation is enacted by different methods, legislatures with approval by the executive of course but also by the direct democracy example that you've shown. Both of these are subject to judicial review so I accept that. If Obamacare is decided constitutional then I will be disappointed and work for repeal while if the High Court decides that restricting marriage to heterosexuals only I will accept that as well. Will you accept both outcomes?
pegwinn
02-13-2012, 11:11 AM
well, we disagree. Apparently so did the fathers since they created an entire branch of government to interpret the document.
IF it were so easy to say okay A) says B) then there wouldn't be all this confusion.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say up front that the following statement might be wrong. If you have a better understanding or source I'd be willing to check it out.
My reading of the Constitution does not explicitly tell the judiciary that they can interpret the document. My understanding of history is that the court took it upon itself to do so. I understand the logic since they are broadly empowered under Art III Sect II. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec1)But it isn't/wasn't explicitly stated. Thus the usurpation or the first Activist Court if you will.
I know we did a whole thread on this. But since this thread was going nowhere anyway..... :laugh:
LuvRPgrl
02-13-2012, 11:14 AM
Your definition is not bad. A bit loose for my taste, but, it is workable if all agree on the details.
That's where you messed up. Your "context" is laughable as it attempts to set up an "If/Then" scenario that is rigged.
Pretty transparent.
Question for you: What is The Right Way To Read The Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33835-The-Right-Way-To-Read-The-Constitution&highlight=verbatim)
using two eyes
one brain
and one dictionary circa 1700's
LuvRPgrl
02-13-2012, 11:20 AM
I generally believe the COTUS should be followed to the letter. But the problem is some of those letters are in fact uber ambiguous.
General welfare. You can't argue that there is NOWAY the founders meant welfare as we know it, just as an example.
So I judge a lot of what the government does by results, not by "OMG is that constitutional." I think that is completely impractical.
that is pretty easy, general welfare, = good action for everyone in the country general= everybody welfare = good action
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AGREE, OR UNDERSTAND FULLY, EVERYTHING IN THE COTUS, BUT WE CAN EASILY SEE MUCH OF WHAT THE FEDS HAVE DONE GOES SQUARELY AGAINST THE COTUS
ConHog
02-13-2012, 11:22 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say up front that the following statement might be wrong. If you have a better understanding or source I'd be willing to check it out.
My reading of the Constitution does not explicitly tell the judiciary that they can interpret the document. My understanding of history is that the court took it upon itself to do so. I understand the logic since they are broadly empowered under Art III Sect II. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec1)But it isn't/wasn't explicitly stated. Thus the usurpation or the first Activist Court if you will.
I know we did a whole thread on this. But since this thread was going nowhere anyway..... :laugh:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
From that self same article. I believe that explicitly says that the Judicial , headed by the SCOTUS, has review power over ALL laws. And logically speaking it would have to be so. Otherwise if Obama were to get a law passed , for example, stating that no one could own any firearms, who with any power could step in and say no no you can't do that? Obviously Congress wouldn't if they voted to give Obama what he wanted.
LuvRPgrl
02-13-2012, 11:24 AM
Yawn
yep, your thread is quite boring
LuvRPgrl
02-13-2012, 11:26 AM
You are creating the slippery slope. The problem is that we haven't just slipped, we've swerved off the highway and over the cliff.
and the vehicle is afire, and about to burst into flames
LuvRPgrl
02-13-2012, 11:41 AM
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
From that self same article. I believe that explicitly says that the Judicial , headed by the SCOTUS, has review power over ALL laws. And logically speaking it would have to be so. Otherwise if Obama were to get a law passed , for example, stating that no one could own any firearms, who with any power could step in and say no no you can't do that? Obviously Congress wouldn't if they voted to give Obama what he wanted.
BUT THEY are still suppose to use the COTUS to decide if the law is constitutional or not.
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, anything we read in the cotus, which is obvious and plain, was what they meant, anything that we interpet, ( ie "what that really means, or, that should include, or that really means, or of course minorities would fit into that definition,)
ANYTHING we interpet it to mean, WE ARE NOT SURE IF THATS WHAT THEY MEANT, AND HENCE SHOULD BE NULL AND VOID
Gunny
02-13-2012, 11:43 AM
That's unfair and untrue Gunny. I have my convictions. Just because they don't jive with yours doesn't mean I can't make a decision.
What convictions are those? That you're determined to straddle that barbed wire? Must feel good. I still have scars from it where a horse tossed me many moons ago.
You may find it unfair, but it is not untrue. You try to ride the middle of the fence and all you get is splinters in your ass for the effort.
ConHog
02-13-2012, 02:20 PM
What convictions are those? That you're determined to straddle that barbed wire? Must feel good. I still have scars from it where a horse tossed me many moons ago.
You may find it unfair, but it is not untrue. You try to ride the middle of the fence and all you get is splinters in your ass for the effort.
I don't straddle a fence Gunny. I simply acknowledge that no one side is always right and I use my own brain to weed through evidence before rendering an opinion.
I am CONVINCED that Obama could hold a press conference and announce he found a cure for cancer and you would find some way to turn that into something negative about liberals. I'd bet money on it.
Sorry I don't buy into the "everything left is evil" agenda that you are selling, but I got news, I'm not the only one on this board, look around us moderates are the many and we are who will make a difference in the next election, not you partisan hacks.
PostmodernProphet
02-13-2012, 03:31 PM
That you're determined to straddle that barbed wire? Must feel good.
picket fences are also contraindicated.....
pegwinn
02-13-2012, 11:33 PM
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
From that self same article. I believe that explicitly says that the Judicial , headed by the SCOTUS, has review power over ALL laws. And logically speaking it would have to be so. Otherwise if Obama were to get a law passed , for example, stating that no one could own any firearms, who with any power could step in and say no no you can't do that? Obviously Congress wouldn't if they voted to give Obama what he wanted.
Sorry charlie. You have conferred the power to LAW AND TREATIES. The Constitution is the foundation of law. It is not law in itself.
Every federal regulation must point back to an actual federal law which authorizes it to exist. Likewise every federal law must point back to the Constitution as the authority for it to exist. The literal word doesn't empower SCOTUS to declare something unconstitutional. It does give them the final word on cases involving LAW and Treaty.
First Activist Court. Way back in the day.
ConHog
02-13-2012, 11:43 PM
Sorry charlie. You have conferred the power to LAW AND TREATIES. The Constitution is the foundation of law. It is not law in itself.
Every federal regulation must point back to an actual federal law which authorizes it to exist. Likewise every federal law must point back to the Constitution as the authority for it to exist. The literal word doesn't empower SCOTUS to declare something unconstitutional. It does give them the final word on cases involving LAW and Treaty.
First Activist Court. Way back in the day.
First your point about regulations and laws is off, for all intents and purposes they are the same thing.
Second, no every federal law doesn't have to be able to point back to the COTUS for it to exist. You have that backwards. Indeed the system of checks and balances is set up to assure that laws DON'T violate the COTUS, not to make sure they are authorized by the COTUS. That is a minor but significant difference, and not understanding that is exactly why you don't understand the need for Court review of laws. IF the standard were merely "a law MUST be authorized by the COTUS" then it no federal law would exist unless it was EXPLICITLY listed in the COTUS either in the original text or by way of an Amendment.
But simple logic tells us that isn't the case, the original text of the COTUS is less than 6,000 words. NO ONE seriously believes that the founding fathers meant for such a brief document to cover every single scenario that a federal government would need to meet, and if more were needed tough shit add an amendment.
For instance, the FBI and all intelligence agencies, military, that sort of thing all draw their legality by virtue of the general welfare and defense clause. NO ONE believes that an amendment was needed SPECIFICALLY authorizing the FBI, just as an example.
Sorry bro, you are ENTIRELY off base here and it's been proven.
But it's all good.
LuvRPgrl
02-13-2012, 11:54 PM
First your point about regulations and laws is off, for all intents and purposes they are the same thing.
Second, no every federal law doesn't have to be able to point back to the COTUS for it to exist. You have that backwards. Indeed the system of checks and balances is set up to assure that laws DON'T violate the COTUS, not to make sure they are authorized by the COTUS. That is a minor but significant difference, and not understanding that is exactly why you don't understand the need for Court review of laws. IF the standard were merely "a law MUST be authorized by the COTUS" then it no federal law would exist unless it was EXPLICITLY listed in the COTUS either in the original text or by way of an Amendment.
But simple logic tells us that isn't the case, the original text of the COTUS is less than 6,000 words. NO ONE seriously believes that the founding fathers meant for such a brief document to cover every single scenario that a federal government would need to meet, and if more were needed tough shit add an amendment.
For instance, the FBI and all intelligence agencies, military, that sort of thing all draw their legality by virtue of the general welfare and defense clause. NO ONE believes that an amendment was needed SPECIFICALLY authorizing the FBI, just as an example.
Sorry bro, you are ENTIRELY off base here and it's been proven.
But it's all good.
SORRY BRO, pegwinn is right. ALL laws must ultimately meet the COTUS TEST. Does the law violate the COTUS OR NOT, if so, its shot down as law, if not, then it is allowed to be law.
rules and regs are not even in the same boat as laws, but they still have the burden of proof = to laws. Are they Constitutional or not.
pegwinn
02-13-2012, 11:57 PM
ConHog, It's been a looooooong day and I am hitting the rack in about twelve seconds. However, tomorrow after work, assuming it isn't like today, I will cheerfully dissect your argument. All in good fun. I can tell the anticipation will make your night. Hasta la C'ya.
ConHog
02-14-2012, 12:00 AM
SORRY BRO, pegwinn is right. ALL laws must ultimately meet the COTUS TEST. Does the law violate the COTUS OR NOT, if so, its shot down as law, if not, then it is allowed to be law.
Umm that is exactly what I said LUV. Peg on the other hand contends that the laws must be IN the cotus not just constitutional. Hence he believes there is no reason for a court to have the power to decide the constitutionality of said laws.
rules and regs are not even in the same boat as laws, but they still have the burden of proof = to laws. Are they Constitutional or not.
You'll notice I said for all intents and purposes , i did NOT say they were the EXACT same thing. Oh and regulations DO have to be constitutional. For instance the city ordinances, which are not technically laws (hence not generally criminal offenses but rather civil offenses) which ban gun ownership are finding themselves tossed as unconstitutional more and more often.
ConHog
02-14-2012, 12:03 AM
ConHog, It's been a looooooong day and I am hitting the rack in about twelve seconds. However, tomorrow after work, assuming it isn't like today, I will cheerfully dissect your argument. All in good fun. I can tell the anticipation will make your night. Hasta la C'ya.
I would actually welcome this as a one on one if you like.
You contend that the COTUS requires that all laws be authorized specifically in the COTUS. I contend that instead all laws must merely show that they are not unconstitutional.
Do I have your stance right? I of course don't expect to see an answer til tomorrow. have a good one.
pegwinn
02-14-2012, 10:57 PM
First your point about regulations and laws is off, for all intents and purposes they are the same thing.
Um, no. Law is written via legislation and signed into law. Regulations can be re-written by unelected bureocrats and there is little, if any, oversight.
Second, no every federal law doesn't have to be able to point back to the COTUS for it to exist. You have that backwards. Indeed the system of checks and balances is set up to assure that laws DON'T violate the COTUS, not to make sure they are authorized by the COTUS. That is a minor but significant difference, and not understanding that is exactly why you don't understand the need for Court review of laws. IF the standard were merely "a law MUST be authorized by the COTUS" then it no federal law would exist unless it was EXPLICITLY listed in the COTUS either in the original text or by way of an Amendment.
Actually not. Here is the real world example.
49 CFR (Long Title is Title 49, Transportation Code of Federal Regulations)
These regulations have the force of law, but are not law. They exist because they are authorized to exist by 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127 Source (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ecd0f7aa14ee46c184dc1c38b1386976&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:2.1.1.1.2&idno=49).
To complete the circle, which part of the US Constitution authorizes 49 USC to exist? Since the subject matter is Transportation, some would argue that the commerce clause would do the trick. Others would erroniously argue that Nessessary and Proper clause is the one.
The point is that to be Constitutional you must be able to explain which portion of the Constitution grants the Congress the authority to make that law.
But simple logic tells us that isn't the case, the original text of the COTUS is less than 6,000 words. NO ONE seriously believes that the founding fathers meant for such a brief document to cover every single scenario that a federal government would need to meet, and if more were needed tough shit add an amendment.
What you, I, or the founders meant is not relevant. Ask a lawyer, what is written is what counts. There is no logic or rational thought behind arguing the points of statute and splitting hairs only to argue philosophy and touchy feely stuff IRT the Constitution.
For instance, the FBI and all intelligence agencies, military, that sort of thing all draw their legality by virtue of the general welfare and defense clause. NO ONE believes that an amendment was needed SPECIFICALLY authorizing the FBI, just as an example.
What others believe isn't relevant. Show me where a national police force is authorised. If you cannot show me, then make a coherant argument on how it is implied.
Also, law enforcement (FBI) isn't the same as the military. Art I Section 8 or 9 IIRC explicitly authroizes an Army and Navy.
Sorry bro, you are ENTIRELY off base here and it's been proven.
But it's all good.
Umm that is exactly what I said LUV. Peg on the other hand contends that the laws must be IN the cotus not just constitutional.
Never said that. I said that regs must be authorized by law and law must be authorized by the Constitution.
...You contend that the COTUS requires that all laws be authorized specifically in the COTUS. I contend that instead all laws must merely show that they are not unconstitutional...
I don't have time to devote to a one-on-one. I'm at a new job and working more hours than a dockside hooker on a payday weekend. You can already see that my response is down and dirty without the usual final nail in the coffin.
Question. How can a law be constitutional if it isn't authorized by the constitution? That appears to me to be the gist of your statement. It's kind of circular.
Off to bed. More worlds to save tomorrow.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.