Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
maybe it will fix global warming.
ROFLMAO.......wait, one problem though.......what do we do about the resulting global freeze? :think:
burn carbon based fuels?
oh no!!! it's a vicious cycle!!
What in the world are you talking about?
Article IV, Section 4 : "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
If the Bill of Rights are incorporated, it removes the rightful power per the federal and state Constitutions of the respective states, to legally attend matters involving such as they see fit. That is not good. That is judicial activism.
The Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land. As stated in the Constitution. And they further State that those powers not delegated to the Federal Government may rest with the States and the people. The Constitution is supreme. IT SHOULD and DOES restrict the States. The Bill of rights and the rest of the Amendments all became part of the Constitution on Ratification.
The Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th amendments are all useless if the States can simply IGNORE them. Further the 14th CLEARLY gives to the Federal Government the right to INCORPORATE the rest of the Constitution , ie , the amendments, to be Supreme over the States.
But back to the most important question. EXACTLY which Bill of Rights amendments do you find troubling if applied to the States? Be specific.
Further I argue that the Bill of Rights applied to the States with out the 14th. The Bill of Rights are protections granted the States and the People by the Superior Government, the Federal Power. They already grant powers to the Federal Government over the States even without the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically states the purpose of the Amendment is to make a promise to the States and the People, the right to always be able to be armed and to maintain militias. The rest of them provide specific protections and promises again to the People and the States. For example the Federal Government can not house troops without permission in homes. Absolutely meaningless if it does not apply directly to the States.
The 9th and 10th Amendments specifically mention the States. If the Bill of rights did not pertain to the States at all, how exactly would such an amendment grant any promise or power to the States or the People?
The 4th and 5th amendments are absolutely meaningless if the States can simply ignore them and compel their citizens to testify against themselves or allow unrestricted searches and seizures.
Have I stated somewhere in my posting, that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land? No, I have not. So, there is no real point in posting that to me, when I have not argued that position.
I already gave an example dealing with the II Amendment. I haven't said anything about states ignoring whatever laws they want to.
You are reading things into my posts I haven't said Gunny. If that is because I haven't been as concise as I need to be, let me know and I will clarify my position(s) for you.
Do we agree that the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government, and not the individual states? That is what I have been saying. The Bill of Rights were not written to be incorporated. None of the supporting founding documents support that kind of position.
In my opinion, the XIV Amendment had nothing to do with incorporation. That is the position I have been debating.
What in the world are you talking about?
Article IV, Section 4 : "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
If the Bill of Rights are incorporated, it removes the rightful power per the federal and state Constitutions of the respective states, to legally attend matters involving such as they see fit. That is not good. That is judicial activism.
The Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land. As stated in the Constitution. And they further State that those powers not delegated to the Federal Government may rest with the States and the people. The Constitution is supreme. IT SHOULD and DOES restrict the States. The Bill of rights and the rest of the Amendments all became part of the Constitution on Ratification.
The Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th amendments are all useless if the States can simply IGNORE them. Further the 14th CLEARLY gives to the Federal Government the right to INCORPORATE the rest of the Constitution , ie , the amendments, to be Supreme over the States.
But back to the most important question. EXACTLY which Bill of Rights amendments do you find troubling if applied to the States? Be specific.
Further I argue that the Bill of Rights applied to the States with out the 14th. The Bill of Rights are protections granted the States and the People by the Superior Government, the Federal Power. They already grant powers to the Federal Government over the States even without the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically states the purpose of the Amendment is to make a promise to the States and the People, the right to always be able to be armed and to maintain militias. The rest of them provide specific protections and promises again to the People and the States. For example the Federal Government can not house troops without permission in homes. Absolutely meaningless if it does not apply directly to the States.
The 9th and 10th Amendments specifically mention the States. If the Bill of rights did not pertain to the States at all, how exactly would such an amendment grant any promise or power to the States or the People?
The 4th and 5th amendments are absolutely meaningless if the States can simply ignore them and compel their citizens to testify against themselves or allow unrestricted searches and seizures.
Have I stated somewhere in my posting, that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land? No, I have not. So, there is no real point in posting that to me, when I have not argued that position.
I already gave an example dealing with the II Amendment. I haven't said anything about states ignoring whatever laws they want to.
You are reading things into my posts I haven't said Gunny. If that is because I haven't been as concise as I need to be, let me know and I will clarify my position(s) for you.
Do we agree that the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government, and not the individual states? That is what I have been saying. The Bill of Rights were not written to be incorporated. None of the supporting founding documents support that kind of position.
In my opinion, the XIV Amendment had nothing to do with incorporation. That is the position I have been debating.
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What is this "you people" crap? You don't know me. Don't presume to think you can lump me in with whatever group you are talking about. I am my own person. I know the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I have not said otherwise in this thread. I have not even hinted of such. Why did you feel a need to tell me that?
What is this "you people" crap? You don't know me. Don't presume to think you can lump me in with whatever group you are talking about. I am my own person. I know the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I have not said otherwise in this thread. I have not even hinted of such. Why did you feel a need to tell me that?
if you notice, i edited that post... because i agree with you and was wrong for lumping ou in with others. apologies.
as for the constitution... there are many people on this board who think the constitution is supposed to be some literalist document to be read like a bible...when that isn't how the cases construe the constitution at all... and when people start in about "activist judges" then I am afraid I tend to make certain judgments.
the best description of an activist judge that i have ever heard was "a judge who doesn't agree with us".
What is this "you people" crap? You don't know me. Don't presume to think you can lump me in with whatever group you are talking about. I am my own person. I know the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I have not said otherwise in this thread. I have not even hinted of such. Why did you feel a need to tell me that?
if you notice, i edited that post... because i agree with you and was wrong for lumping ou in with others. apologies.
as for the constitution... there are many people on this board who think the constitution is supposed to be some literalist document to be read like a bible...when that isn't how the cases construe the constitution at all... and when people start in about "activist judges" then I am afraid I tend to make certain judgments.
the best description of an activist judge that i have ever heard was "a judge who doesn't agree with us".
The Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land. As stated in the Constitution. And they further State that those powers not delegated to the Federal Government may rest with the States and the people. The Constitution is supreme. IT SHOULD and DOES restrict the States. The Bill of rights and the rest of the Amendments all became part of the Constitution on Ratification.
The Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th amendments are all useless if the States can simply IGNORE them. Further the 14th CLEARLY gives to the Federal Government the right to INCORPORATE the rest of the Constitution , ie , the amendments, to be Supreme over the States.
But back to the most important question. EXACTLY which Bill of Rights amendments do you find troubling if applied to the States? Be specific.
Further I argue that the Bill of Rights applied to the States with out the 14th. The Bill of Rights are protections granted the States and the People by the Superior Government, the Federal Power. They already grant powers to the Federal Government over the States even without the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically states the purpose of the Amendment is to make a promise to the States and the People, the right to always be able to be armed and to maintain militias. The rest of them provide specific protections and promises again to the People and the States. For example the Federal Government can not house troops without permission in homes. Absolutely meaningless if it does not apply directly to the States.
The 9th and 10th Amendments specifically mention the States. If the Bill of rights did not pertain to the States at all, how exactly would such an amendment grant any promise or power to the States or the People?
The 4th and 5th amendments are absolutely meaningless if the States can simply ignore them and compel their citizens to testify against themselves or allow unrestricted searches and seizures.
Have I stated somewhere in my posting, that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land? No, I have not. So, there is no real point in posting that to me, when I have not argued that position.
I already gave an example dealing with the II Amendment. I haven't said anything about states ignoring whatever laws they want to.
You are reading things into my posts I haven't said Gunny. If that is because I haven't been as concise as I need to be, let me know and I will clarify my position(s) for you.
Do we agree that the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government, and not the individual states? That is what I have been saying. The Bill of Rights were not written to be incorporated. None of the supporting founding documents support that kind of position.
In my opinion, the XIV Amendment had nothing to do with incorporation. That is the position I have been debating.
We do not agree. The entire point is that the Federal Government is supreme. Any law they pass is the law of the land. ANYTHING in the Constitution applies to the States. There is no need for the 9th and 10th Amendments if nothing in the Constitution applies to the States. And there is no need for the Bill of Rights if those rights do not apply uniformly through out the Country.
There is absolutely no reason to talk about State rights and peoples rights if the Federal Government has no authority via the Constitution to claim power over the States or the People. NONE of them make any sense if that is the facts.
Again take the 5th Amendment, it means nothing if the States can just ignore it. All the Federal Government would need to do is convince one of the States to question a person and compel them to incriminate themselves.Also for the 4th, all the Federal Government would need to do is ask a State to do the search or the seizure if that Amendment does not apply to the States.
I view the Constitution, as how a visiting prof during my 1L year put it........it is a dead document meant to bind future generations with its precepts.
When I use the term "activist judges," I am referring to someone who injects either their personal opinions and biases into and above the Constitution as part of their ruling, or another party, for whatever reason. Another words, reading things into the Constitution, that aren't actually there, for whatever purpose. A lot of people do throw that term around, just because they disagree with a ruling. Oft times, it is political bias by the poster.
I didn't see the edit. Thank you for that.
I view the Constitution, as how a visiting prof during my 1L year put it........it is a dead document meant to bind future generations with its precepts.
lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
I view the Constitution, as how a visiting prof during my 1L year put it........it is a dead document meant to bind future generations with its precepts.
lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
Hahaha.....My (both) con law prof was a lib, this guy was a con, so what can I say? LOL
And I was 36 at the time
Seriously though.....a dead document, as it was put to me, allows changes.....but is more a willow tree than a fox......standing firm and bending when needed, not darting at the first scent on the wind.
How's that for a metaphor?
I view the Constitution, as how a visiting prof during my 1L year put it........it is a dead document meant to bind future generations with its precepts.
lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
No stroke here.I view the Constitution, as how a visiting prof during my 1L year put it........it is a dead document meant to bind future generations with its precepts.
lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
My con law prof was more like yours, jillian. And BGG would have apoplexy if he knew what my 1st Amendment prof thought.
I am tougher than I look. 
I like doing battle with the legal heathens. lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
Hahaha.....My (both) con law prof was a lib, this guy was a con, so what can I say? LOL
And I was 36 at the time
Seriously though.....a dead document, as it was put to me, allows changes.....but is more a willow tree than a fox......standing firm and bending when needed, not darting at the first scent on the wind.
How's that for a metaphor?
Do I know you from somewhere else? I think I do.
Hahaha.....My (both) con law prof was a lib, this guy was a con, so what can I say? LOL
And I was 36 at the time
Seriously though.....a dead document, as it was put to me, allows changes.....but is more a willow tree than a fox......standing firm and bending when needed, not darting at the first scent on the wind.
How's that for a metaphor?
Do I know you from somewhere else? I think I do.
I don't think so....*confused*
I view the Constitution, as how a visiting prof during my 1L year put it........it is a dead document meant to bind future generations with its precepts.
lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
My con law prof was more like yours, jillian. And BGG would have apoplexy if he knew what my 1st Amendment prof thought.
Come to the dark side. I have ice cream. Do I know you from somewhere else? I think I do.
I don't think so....*confused*
Not the first time I was confuzzled and wrong. There was that time back in 1970's.
No stroke here.lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
My con law prof was more like yours, jillian. And BGG would have apoplexy if he knew what my 1st Amendment prof thought.
No stroke here.My con law prof was more like yours, jillian. And BGG would have apoplexy if he knew what my 1st Amendment prof thought.
I suppose I should go mutter some incantations and burn incense over a copy of the COTUS now. But my robes are at the cleaner's.
lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).
but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.
My con law prof was more like yours, jillian. And BGG would have apoplexy if he knew what my 1st Amendment prof thought.
The power of BGG compels you Gold.
