States rights pipe dream

[Dr Gregg]

The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

When SCOTUS rules in direct contrast to what is clearly stated in the Constitution- well, I'm sure you're familiar with Jefferson's thoughts on how to handle such a matter.

Who the fuck cares what Jefferson thoughts are, he's dead. SCOTUS determines what laws are unconstitutional or not. What overturns that other than another SCOTUS ruling?

 

[Dr Gregg]

This post needs to be forwarded a number of threads and a lot of posters.

I think there are people who specifically want the case law and not the actual Constitution dictating what it says.

Yep. They speak of precident. Even precident(s) can be and ARE wrong.

And who determines if its wrong? you got it, SCOTUS, not some person who disagrees with the decision and cries that everything is unconstitutional

Again, SCOTUS making rulings on laws is in the constitution, and is CONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Dr Gregg]

The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

The power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution was established in Case Law, not the Constitution. Somebody help. Was this Marbury v. Madison?

right, so we haven't followed the constitution in decades and decades?

And what else would the judicial branch do if they did'nt interpret laws? What was the point of the judicial branch then if not to determine if laws are unconstitutional or not? To look pretty in robes?

And wouldn't the courts ruling that be in fact constitutional?

 

[ihopehefails]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

The constitution strictly says that states have most of the power in this governmental system. You are free to alter the constitution with amendments giving the federal government more power but until then your way of thinking is nothing more than a pipedream.

 

[Dr Gregg]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

The constitution strictly says that states have most of the power in this governmental system. You are free to alter the constitution with amendments giving the federal government more power but until then your way of thinking is nothing more than a pipedream.

NO need to. Maybe the whiny conservatives can change the constitution every time the federal gov't does something and they cry its unconstitutional, yet it never is ruled so.

 

[Sherry]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

Never.

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

When SCOTUS rules in direct contrast to what is clearly stated in the Constitution- well, I'm sure you're familiar with Jefferson's thoughts on how to handle such a matter.

Who the fuck cares what Jefferson thoughts are, he's dead. SCOTUS determines what laws are unconstitutional or not. What overturns that other than another SCOTUS ruling?

I do.

 

[rightwinger]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

That ship has already sailed and is not coming back....

There is no way to return to the 19th century view of states rights. Too many functions are embedded into the Federal Government and can't be portioned out to the states. If we were to actually try to execute a state centered United States again we would throw ourselves into a second ciil war. Taxes and debt would escallate and services would be severely reduced. We the people would not tolerate it

 

[The T]

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

The power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution was established in Case Law, not the Constitution. Somebody help. Was this Marbury v. Madison?

right, so we haven't followed the constitution in decades and decades?

And what else would the judicial branch do if they did'nt interpret laws? What was the point of the judicial branch then if not to determine if laws are unconstitutional or not? To look pretty in robes?

And wouldn't the courts ruling that be in fact constitutional?

So your contention is they ignore it but WHY follow it? Dangerous thinking...but right on track with Obama, The Congress and other Statist Nutjobs.

Now forget---That the Constitution IS what ALL American LAW is based.

What you propose is Anarchy.

You sir, are a fuckin' DOPE.

 

[ihopehefails]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

That ship has already sailed and is not coming back....

There is no way to return to the 19th century view of states rights. Too many functions are embedded into the Federal Government and can't be portioned out to the states. If we were to actually try to execute a state centered United States again we would throw ourselves into a second ciil war. Taxes and debt would escallate and services would be severely reduced. We the people would not tolerate it

Anyone who doesn't follow the constitution is breaking the supreme law of the land since it states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land in itself. Anything written in it supercedes any law created by congress or the states and anyone who doesn't follow it is just as guilty as any other lawbreaker.

 

[rightwinger]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

That ship has already sailed and is not coming back....

There is no way to return to the 19th century view of states rights. Too many functions are embedded into the Federal Government and can't be portioned out to the states. If we were to actually try to execute a state centered United States again we would throw ourselves into a second ciil war. Taxes and debt would escallate and services would be severely reduced. We the people would not tolerate it

Anyone who doesn't follow the constitution is breaking the supreme law of the land since it states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land in itself. Anything written in it supercedes any law created by congress or the states and anyone who doesn't follow it is just as guilty as any other lawbreaker.

No it doesn't

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.

Anyone else find that preposterous?

 

[The T]

The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.

Anyone else find that preposterous?

Partially correct. The people are the final arbitor.

 

[JBeukema]

. SCOTUS determines what laws are unconstitutional or not

No, the Constitution does. SCOTUS is merely tasked with being those who dedicate their lives to its study and taking the scalpel of logic to determine how exactly its words and the concepts they express apply to a given situation.

What overturns that other than another SCOTUS ruling?

The Constitution itself.

 

[rightwinger]

Quote:
What overturns that other than another SCOTUS ruling?
The Constitution itself.

Tail.......wags dog

 

[The T]

Quote:
What overturns that other than another SCOTUS ruling?
The Constitution itself.

Tail.......wags dog

Really? You really were inept at History weren't you?

 

[rightwinger]

Quote:
What overturns that other than another SCOTUS ruling?
The Constitution itself.

Tail.......wags dog

Really? You really were inept at History weren't you?

How does the Constitution interpret itself?

 

[2Parties]

The OP must support global government or he's a hypocrite.

 

[The T]

Tail.......wags dog

Really? You really were inept at History weren't you?

How does the Constitution interpret itself?

Words Mean things. And the Founders left a 'Manual' of sorts. It's there for the reading and as an added bonus? It's free all over the Internet.

I suggest that YOU aquaint and educate yourself sewerboy.

The shit you're spewing here doesn't quite cut it, nor is your twisting of words.

I ain't buying what yer sellin.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? You really were inept at History weren't you?

How does the Constitution interpret itself?

Words Mean things. And the Founders left a 'Manual' of sorts. It's there for the reading and as an added bonus? It's free all over the Internet.

I suggest that YOU aquaint and educate yourself sewerboy.

The shit you're spewing here doesn't quite cut it, nor is your twisting of words.

I ain't buying what yer sellin.

How can you explain two hundred years of trying to interpret the second amendment?

 

[Murf76]

So your contention is they ignore it but WHY follow it? Dangerous thinking...but right on track with Obama, The Congress and other Statist Nutjobs.

Now forget---That the Constitution IS what ALL American LAW is based.

What you propose is Anarchy.

You sir, are a fuckin' DOPE.

They always seem to forget that without the U.S. Constitution, they have no authority with which to compel us, save right of might. And that's a double-edged sword best not to be fucked with.

There is NO United States of America without that Constitution. There are just 50 States.