Founding fathers were village idiots.

:cuckoo:
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true

And even these 9 Black-Robed Humans get it wrong.

Do you have a better way of doing it?

Be honest now, this isn't about choosing sides, or Whom wins or looses. Does it ever bother you that so many controversial decisions are based on a 5/4 split?

What ever happened to giving light to the full arguments, giving weight to relevance, importance, and allowing place in the Ruling. Does the Court in Theory serve Truth and Justice or Expediency and Convenience, at the Cost of Truth and Justice? Personally I think the Court leaves too much unresolved, It needs to try harder. I really think the Justices need to discuss with each other further, and better refine the end resolution. My point is that the process should better refine.
 
Last edited:
Could you quote the relevant article and section for me?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Which, of course, takes us back in a circle, because you missed the part that says "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." The laws must be made in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for them to be supreme over the states, therefore leaving a "loophole" for the states to nullify federal law not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly forbid state nullification.


Dream on. The final clause in bold is all-encompassing upon the states and if you think any court anywhere would rule otherwise you're kidding yourself.
 
I didn't sign the Constitution. I wasn't even alive when it was made. Why should I follow it or even care? You can't sign a contract on behalf of another person without their consent.

This question from the OP does at least deserve to be pondered. Perhaps Citizenship should NOT be assumed simply because of place of birth. Perhaps a fully informed adult signing of a binding covenant should be required of everyone desiring to take part in decision making by the body politic. Those not wanting to sign the Constitution contract could remain as resident non-citizens as long as they kept their nose clean and paid cash on the barrelhead for any State services provided.

Or perhaps the OP should realize that the Constitution isn't a contract she's bound to "without her consent". She gave consent when she chose to remain in this country and benefit from the way of life given us by our Constitution. Any time she does not wish to be party to it, she can pick up and leave, no harm, no foul. In fact, I doubt anyone would give a damn.

Makes you wonder why those that don't like it remain here. They are FREE to leave. Instead they whine, complain, and make life miserable for the rest of us that outnumber them by a wide margin.

The majority of us subscribe to it, and in fact participate to sustain it, not screw it up by listening to a few malcontents that are into self abuse by remaining.

In short? America- Love It, or Leave It...and Stop trying to screw it up for the rest of us that want to be left alone...
 
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Which, of course, takes us back in a circle, because you missed the part that says "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." The laws must be made in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for them to be supreme over the states, therefore leaving a "loophole" for the states to nullify federal law not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly forbid state nullification.


Dream on. The final clause in bold is all-encompassing upon the states and if you think any court anywhere would rule otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.
 
And even these 9 Black-Robed Humans get it wrong.

Do you have a better way of doing it?

Be honest not, this isn't about choosing sides, or Whom wins or looses. Does it ever bother you that so many controversial decisions are based on a 5/4 split?

What ever happened to giving light to the full arguments, giving weight to relevance, importance, and allowing place in the Ruling. Does the Court in Theory serve Truth and Justice or Expediency and Convenience, at the Cost of Truth and Justice? Personally I think the Court leaves too much unresolved, It needs to try harder. I really think the Justices need to discuss with each other further, and better refine the end resolution. My point is that the process should better refine.

And I will go one further with you...Does it bother anyone that we are so of treated to the titles of "The left wing or Conservative Wing" of the Courts when there should be none?

Kinda throws the whole notion of impartiality and rule of LAW out the window. [Yes I can about hear the responses...and the ensuing debates here...LOL!] ;)
 
Which, of course, takes us back in a circle, because you missed the part that says "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." The laws must be made in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for them to be supreme over the states, therefore leaving a "loophole" for the states to nullify federal law not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly forbid state nullification.


Dream on. The final clause in bold is all-encompassing upon the states and if you think any court anywhere would rule otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.

Whoops! 'Vested interest in POWER" Gracie? Do you realize what you just wrote?
 
Dream on. The final clause in bold is all-encompassing upon the states and if you think any court anywhere would rule otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.

Whoops! 'Vested interest in POWER" Gracie? Do you realize what you just wrote?

You disagree that a branch of the federal government has a vested interest in increasing its power at the expense of the states and people?
 
Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.

Whoops! 'Vested interest in POWER" Gracie? Do you realize what you just wrote?

You disagree that a branch of the federal government has a vested interest in increasing its power at the expense of the states and people?

Your statement throws the entire premise of Impartiality of the Court to RULE on LAW rather than 'Causes' of the masses. That isn't what the Founders had in MIND when defining the Courts' ROLE.
 
Which, of course, takes us back in a circle, because you missed the part that says "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." The laws must be made in "Pursuance" of the Constitution for them to be supreme over the states, therefore leaving a "loophole" for the states to nullify federal law not in "Pursuance" of the Constitution. The Constitution does not explicitly forbid state nullification.


Dream on. The final clause in bold is all-encompassing upon the states and if you think any court anywhere would rule otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.


Well, if you don't think it's "right" then try to get the Constitution changed. Until then, that's the way it is.
 
Whoops! 'Vested interest in POWER" Gracie? Do you realize what you just wrote?

You disagree that a branch of the federal government has a vested interest in increasing its power at the expense of the states and people?

Your statement throws the entire premise of Impartiality of the Court to RULE on LAW rather than 'Causes' of the masses. That isn't what the Founders had in MIND when defining the Courts' ROLE.

The federal government is never impartial in the case of its own power, and the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. Jefferson knew this:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers."

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
 
Dream on. The final clause in bold is all-encompassing upon the states and if you think any court anywhere would rule otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.


Well, if you don't think it's "right" then try to get the Constitution changed. Until then, that's the way it is.

Well I'd certainly support an amendment enshrining nullification as a right of the states, but technically the Constitution already allows for it.
 
Dream on. The final clause in bold is all-encompassing upon the states and if you think any court anywhere would rule otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.


Well, if you don't think it's "right" then try to get the Constitution changed. Until then, that's the way it is.

Exactly. And I don't care a wit of Precident, and all the rest of that horsecrap. Just because they do it, and have done it doesn't make it correct, and has effictively bastardized the role of the Court(s).

A better term for what Kevin described is 'Judicial Activism'. I agree with you Brubricker.
 
You disagree that a branch of the federal government has a vested interest in increasing its power at the expense of the states and people?

Your statement throws the entire premise of Impartiality of the Court to RULE on LAW rather than 'Causes' of the masses. That isn't what the Founders had in MIND when defining the Courts' ROLE.

The federal government is never impartial in the case of its own power, and the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. Jefferson knew this:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers."

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

You may quote Jefferson all you like. It still does not address the Judicial Activism that you seem the courts role is. They were to remain Impartial and rule on LAW, and such law as prescribed in the Constitution.

They weren't supposed to be siding on the latest cause celeb. That was left to the Legislative/Executive Branches.

You have a rather twisted view of the court. And inheriently WRONG.
 
Your statement throws the entire premise of Impartiality of the Court to RULE on LAW rather than 'Causes' of the masses. That isn't what the Founders had in MIND when defining the Courts' ROLE.

The federal government is never impartial in the case of its own power, and the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. Jefferson knew this:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers."

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

You may quote Jefferson all you like. It still does not address the Judicial Activism that you seem the courts role is. They were to remain Impartial and rule on LAW, and such law as prescribed in the Constitution.

They weren't supposed to be siding on the latest cause celeb. That was left to the Legislative/Executive Branches.

You have a rather twisted view of the court. And inheriently WRONG.

It doesn't matter what the court's role is supposed to be, but rather what it is. And all the court has ever shown it is capable of is "judicial activism." That is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, and supported nullification.
 
Just because a court, which has a vested interest in the power of the federal government over the states, wouldn't rule a certain way, doesn't mean it's right.


Well, if you don't think it's "right" then try to get the Constitution changed. Until then, that's the way it is.

Well I'd certainly support an amendment enshrining nullification as a right of the states, but technically the Constitution already allows for it.


No, the Constitution does not allow for it and the Supreme Court said so in the 1859 case of Ableman v. Booth. But then, you apparently think all federal courts of any kind are invalid so just go right ahead and keep on making up your own legal doctrines out of thin air.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you don't think it's "right" then try to get the Constitution changed. Until then, that's the way it is.

Well I'd certainly support an amendment enshrining nullification as a right of the states, but technically the Constitution already allows for it.


No, the Constitution does not allow for it and the Supreme Court said so in the 1859 case of Ableman v. Booth. But then, you apparently think all federal courts of any kind are invalid so just go right ahead and keep on making up your own legal doctrines out of thin air.

Well I'm certainly not making up any legal doctrine, as nullification has a storied history here in the U.S.
 
This is the site where this OAF wrote this...

www.prisoners.com is a nonprofit corporation of education, information and charity. Our mission is to benefit the 120,000+ state, local and federal prisoners in Pennsylvania, their families and loved ones. Further, we aim to assist prisoners everywhere.

I'd say this guy has a record, and quite an AXE to grind.


You've found a group to take up your cause?


bravo, :clap2: bravo, :clap2: bravo, :clap2:
 
Well I'd certainly support an amendment enshrining nullification as a right of the states, but technically the Constitution already allows for it.


No, the Constitution does not allow for it and the Supreme Court said so in the 1859 case of Ableman v. Booth. But then, you apparently think all federal courts of any kind are invalid so just go right ahead and keep on making up your own legal doctrines out of thin air.

Well I'm certainly not making up any legal doctrine, as nullification has a storied history here in the U.S.


It has a storied history of being rejected. See Ableman v. Booth mentioned above, not to mention every single other time its ever been attempted. No federal law has been nullified by a state.......ever.
 
This is the site where this OAF wrote this...

www.prisoners.com is a nonprofit corporation of education, information and charity. Our mission is to benefit the 120,000+ state, local and federal prisoners in Pennsylvania, their families and loved ones. Further, we aim to assist prisoners everywhere.

I'd say this guy has a record, and quite an AXE to grind.

You've found a group to take up your cause?


bravo, :clap2: bravo, :clap2: bravo, :clap2:

What the fuck are you babbling about Dante? OUT with it HERE and NOW.
 
The federal government is never impartial in the case of its own power, and the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. Jefferson knew this:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers."

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

You may quote Jefferson all you like. It still does not address the Judicial Activism that you seem the courts role is. They were to remain Impartial and rule on LAW, and such law as prescribed in the Constitution.

They weren't supposed to be siding on the latest cause celeb. That was left to the Legislative/Executive Branches.

You have a rather twisted view of the court. And inheriently WRONG.

It doesn't matter what the court's role is supposed to be, but rather what it is. And all the court has ever shown it is capable of is "judicial activism." That is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, and supported nullification.

Obama? Is that YOU?

You are wrong on so many levels. If yours is the case, then it should be dissolved.
 

Forum List

Back
Top