How to replace Judial Review

[NYcarbineer]

As any textbook on government will tell us, the power to interpret the Constitution is simply not expressed in the Constitution, and that is why Marbury is such an important Court decision, maybe one of the most important.

It is implied, and Marbury is simply an early example of how implied powers manifest themselves.

Implied??? HAHAHA. Are you sure you want to say that? Anyone can say anything is implied!!

Okay, you can answer the question that no one else wants to.

How do you protect your 2nd amendment rights from unconstitutional state legislation, for example, infringeing on those rights,

if you don't have a Supreme Court possessing the implied power of judicial review?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[I'll take that to mean that you cannot find anything in the Constitution that empowers the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, nor to dictate new law through fiat, then?

Over 200 years of binding case law proves it, for another thing.

Binding case law??? Case law gets overturned by the courts all the time. 170 years of case law said abortion was a state matter and then in 1973 the courts said it just became a federal matter!!!! Explain that, you moron.

It's binding while it's the law. Go back and read the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it's either "implied" or it's stated, and even most of the liberals have given up on the lie that it's stated. There is no other choice. And that the founders specifically wrote an enumerated power document, the idea that they included implied powers is ridiculous.

In a document such as the Constitution where implied powers are included, they are materially no different than stated powers.

Google the word "enumerated" and get back to me.

The Constitution has implied powers in it. That has been proven over 200 years. Only some nuts on the right claim otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To the exent that the indirect election of senators reflected truer state intentions than direct, your beleif is simply a historical fallacy flamed by the one percent who would have greater power with less direct citizen input, and nothing indicates that direct election does not better reflect the wishes of the state electorate. In fact, a brief trip down history lane would bring up people like .... William Lorimore

As usual, you are totally wrong.


"the Amendment, which mandated the popular election of U.S. Senators (as opposed to the original system of appointment by state legislators) allows a small cabal of wealthy and influential people to dominate governmental decision-making. Getting elected to the U.S. Senate requires the raising of millions of dollars for television advertising and other elements of modern campaigning, so that senators have long been in the pockets of their major donors from all over the country, and the world, as opposed to the folks back home.


The founding fathers intended that state legislatures would appoint senators and then instruct them on how to vote in Congress. This was to safeguard against the corruption of senators by special interests.

.

This was to make sure the senators stayed corrupted by only state special interests.

Like the Cornhusker Kickback?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it's either "implied" or it's stated, and even most of the liberals have given up on the lie that it's stated. There is no other choice. And that the founders specifically wrote an enumerated power document, the idea that they included implied powers is ridiculous.

Then what was the point of having a Bill of Rights if no enumerated power was included to give the federal government the power to protect those rights, and no implied power could be legitimately invoked to do so?

I proposed how to protect those rights. Do you have any point which addresses my actual argument? If you want to argue this one, you have to argue it with someone who believes this.

You tossed out some crackpottery, let's be clear about that.

I'll take your answer to be your concession that based on your view of the Constitution, there is no right to bear arms,

in reality, because there is no constitutional mechanism in place to assure that protection when it's threatened by unconstitutional laws.

Which conflicts with what you said awhile ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8058077-post1826.html

 

[Contumacious]

How heartening. You quote from the White Supremacist Thomas DiLorenzo, (without attribution) -- with gibberish that doesn't even come close to addressing the major point. Like that's a surprise.

I remember now why I wrote you off as WOT.

So those of us who are not dick sucking socialists are "white supremacists"

.

 

[Contumacious]

Is that a yes or a no?

Without the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review, gun rights would be a state by state matter.

In the late 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution and that Congress has not right to regulate it,

Case and language, please.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

 

[kaz]

In a document such as the Constitution where implied powers are included, they are materially no different than stated powers.

Google the word "enumerated" and get back to me.

The Constitution has implied powers in it. That has been proven over 200 years. Only some nuts on the right claim otherwise.

First of all, you're begging the question. You're too stupid to know what that means and too lazy to look it up, so I'll just move on.

So sure, the Constitution, which is a document, of ENUMERATED powers, was followed up with the bill of rights. Which said this.

The 10th amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So according to you, the founders said that unless a power is enumerated OR implied, then it goes to the States. You have zero evidence and not even an argument that implied rights in an enumerated document makes sense and it's absolutely a flat out stupid argument if you read the things they wrote.

Oh, and you think I'm a Republican. As I said, I hope you're hot, because the only way you're earning a living is on your back.

 

[paperview]

How heartening. You quote from the White Supremacist Thomas DiLorenzo, (without attribution) -- with gibberish that doesn't even come close to addressing the major point. Like that's a surprise.

I remember now why I wrote you off as WOT.

So those of us who are not dick sucking socialists are "white supremacists"

.

Thomas DiLorenzo is. It's not like he's made a secret of it.

(wonder why you chose not to attribute his words to your post. Hmmm.)

 

[paperview]

In the late 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution and that Congress has not right to regulate it,

Case and language, please.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

And what happened...

Federal charges brought against several members of the white mob under the Enforcement Act of 1870, prohibiting two or more people from conspiring to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights, were appealed to the Supreme Court. Among these charges including hindering the freedmen's First Amendment right to freely assemble and their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.



In its ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions against the white men, holding that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state action, not individual citizens.[3] The Court also ruled that the First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens.[4] In addition, the Justices ruled that the Second Amendment only restricts the power of the national government, and that it does not grant private citizens a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.[5]


For the next several decades after the Cruikshank ruling, blacks citizens in the South were left at the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments, which passed laws restricting voting based on race, turned a blind eye on paramilitary groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Camelia, White League and Red Shirts, and ignored any request to grant blacks the right to keep and bear arms

...

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As whites dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence, and denied African Americans any right to bear arms by refusing to pass laws that would have granting them.


As constitutional commentator Leonard Levy later wrote in 1987, "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan." Federal civil rights enforcement was blocked by Cruikshank until 1966 (United States v. Price; United States v. Guest) when the Court vitiated Cruikshank

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

Then what was the point of having a Bill of Rights if no enumerated power was included to give the federal government the power to protect those rights, and no implied power could be legitimately invoked to do so?

I proposed how to protect those rights. Do you have any point which addresses my actual argument? If you want to argue this one, you have to argue it with someone who believes this.

You tossed out some crackpottery, let's be clear about that.

I'll take your answer to be your concession that based on your view of the Constitution, there is no right to bear arms,

in reality, because there is no constitutional mechanism in place to assure that protection when it's threatened by unconstitutional laws.

Which conflicts with what you said awhile ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8058077-post1826.html

You're babbling nonsense. I never said any of that crap you're making up. In fact you quote me saying the 2nd is valid. The only one who said it's not is you. If you say things that I said, I'd be glad to stand behind them. You're saying things I didn't say and didn't mean. There's something seriously wrong with you.

 

[Contumacious]

How heartening. You quote from the White Supremacist Thomas DiLorenzo, (without attribution) -- with gibberish that doesn't even come close to addressing the major point. Like that's a surprise.

I remember now why I wrote you off as WOT.

So those of us who are not dick sucking socialists are "white supremacists"

.

Thomas DiLorenzo is. It's not like he's made a secret of it.

(wonder why you chose not to attribute his words to your post. Hmmm.)

Bullshit.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a document such as the Constitution where implied powers are included, they are materially no different than stated powers.

Google the word "enumerated" and get back to me.

The Constitution has implied powers in it. That has been proven over 200 years. Only some nuts on the right claim otherwise.

Correct.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied:

The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate and plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may be employed to carry it into effect pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause.

McCulloch v. Maryland ? Case Brief Summary

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is consequently a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[candycorn]

Another "we've got to do something to stop Obama" thread.

 

[Contumacious]

Case and language, please.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

And what happened...

]

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

 

[paperview]

For the next several decades after the Cruikshank ruling, blacks citizens in the South were left at the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments, which passed laws restricting voting based on race, turned a blind eye on paramilitary groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Camelia, White League and Red Shirts, and ignored any request to grant blacks the right to keep and bear arms

...

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As whites dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence, and denied African Americans any right to bear arms by refusing to pass laws that would have granting them.


As constitutional commentator Leonard Levy later wrote in 1987, "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan." Federal civil rights enforcement was blocked by Cruikshank until 1966 (United States v. Price; United States v. Guest) when the Court vitiated Cruikshank

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contumacious]

For the next several decades after the Cruikshank ruling, blacks citizens in the South were left at the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments, which passed laws restricting voting based on race, turned a blind eye on paramilitary groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Camelia, White League and Red Shirts, and ignored any request to grant blacks the right to keep and bear arms

...

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As whites dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence, and denied African Americans any right to bear arms by refusing to pass laws that would have granting them.


As constitutional commentator Leonard Levy later wrote in 1987, "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan." Federal civil rights enforcement was blocked by Cruikshank until 1966 (United States v. Price; United States v. Guest) when the Court vitiated Cruikshank

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your partner in crime questioned whether SCOTUS had ever ruled that the right to bear arms is extraconstitutional and not subjected to Congressional regulation.

The answer is yes.

State sponsored terrorism against Afro-Americans notwithstanding.


.

 

[paperview]

Was that the question he asked?

Let's review:

Just for the record,

do you believe the Supreme Court should not have the power to protect, say, the 2nd amendment,

by using judicial review to declare laws to be unconstitutional violations of said amendment?

The problem is that fascist/socialist scumbags like Obama also gets to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court.

Do you want one of those "justices" to abolish the 2A under the guise of judicial review?

.

Is that a yes or a no?

Without the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review, gun rights would be a state by state matter.

You proved his point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I proposed how to protect those rights. Do you have any point which addresses my actual argument? If you want to argue this one, you have to argue it with someone who believes this.

You tossed out some crackpottery, let's be clear about that.

I'll take your answer to be your concession that based on your view of the Constitution, there is no right to bear arms,

in reality, because there is no constitutional mechanism in place to assure that protection when it's threatened by unconstitutional laws.

Which conflicts with what you said awhile ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8058077-post1826.html

You're babbling nonsense. I never said any of that crap you're making up. In fact you quote me saying the 2nd is valid. The only one who said it's not is you. If you say things that I said, I'd be glad to stand behind them. You're saying things I didn't say and didn't mean. There's something seriously wrong with you.

You can't protect the 2nd amendment without judicial review. You oppose judicial review. You claim the Supreme Court never had that right, never had the right to assume that right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the late 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution and that Congress has not right to regulate it,

Case and language, please.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

A guy who doesn't think the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review keeps citing court cases, i.e., examples of judicial review,

to support his arguments.

Priceless.