States rights pipe dream

[Dr Gregg]

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.

As you continue to make shit up and twist what I'm arguing. Having a more centralized government and federal rules and regulations, like we have today and has been that way for a long time, is not anarchy. Where are you getting this from?

So the constitution doesn't say that the Judicial branch determines whether laws are unconstitutional or not? Then how is it that they do such a thing, and have been doing it for a while now?

 

[Dr Gregg]

. 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.

so the constitution can talk and make rulings? or you just arguing semantics? SCOTUS makes the rulings about the constitution, like the constitution says. I'll ask again, what's SCOTUS for if not to determine what is constitutional or not?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Brilliant. "This is the twenty-first century. Give up trying to have a good society, and just accept that we're going to impose tyranny on you. Life sucks, it's inevitable."

Tell you what, assmunch. YOU give up YOUR ideology and hopes for the future, and let the rest of us decide whether accepting a shit sandwich without protest is realism or stupidity for ourselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Why don't you cite for us precisely where "that part" is in the Constitution, oh great scholar?

 

[The T]

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.

Absolutely. Interesting that so many think that just because it [Constitution] has been skirted, It's a cause celeb to just *IGNORE* it for political AIMS.

This Administration if anything *GOOD* they've done? Have highlighted it for everyone to see.

And yet we find ourselves under the Boot Of Statists as Obama and the Congress at our necks as Gibbs so proudly proclained as they had their boots on the throats of BP.

We are in the thoes of a SOFT Tyranny.

It's how these people think.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

Of course, you don't address the point. Words do have meaning, and the constitution having SCOTUS rule on laws based on the constitution is indeed IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Are some of you for real?

 

[Dr Gregg]

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

2Parties must not be able to read, or is an idiot.

What does that have to do with my OP. HOly nutters

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Believe so, yeah. And it was deliberately intended to undermine the Constitution as written and ratified.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

Who is saying there is no constitution nor should their be? YOu guys seem to ignore the part where the judicial branch interprets and makes rulings based on the laws and the constitution

 

[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.

Brilliant. "This is the twenty-first century. Give up trying to have a good society, and just accept that we're going to impose tyranny on you. Life sucks, it's inevitable."

Tell you what, assmunch. YOU give up YOUR ideology and hopes for the future, and let the rest of us decide whether accepting a shit sandwich without protest is realism or stupidity for ourselves.

Another person who is unable to read and just makes shit up. What does this have to do with anything I've said?
This thread sure shows who the true moron nuts are, unreal

 

[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?

Why don't you cite for us precisely where "that part" is in the Constitution, oh great scholar?

So for 200 years of SCOTUS rulings were unconstitutional? And nobody did a thing about it?
Do you people even think about the things you type?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Brilliant. "This is the twenty-first century. Give up trying to have a good society, and just accept that we're going to impose tyranny on you. Life sucks, it's inevitable."

Tell you what, assmunch. YOU give up YOUR ideology and hopes for the future, and let the rest of us decide whether accepting a shit sandwich without protest is realism or stupidity for ourselves.

Another person who is unable to read and just makes shit up. What does this have to do with anything I've said?
This thread sure shows who the true moron nuts are, unreal

That's EXACTLY what you said, just cut down to the bare, ugly meaning you were trying to hide.

You're right about this thread showing us who the morons and nuts are, though.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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?

Believe so, yeah. And it was deliberately intended to undermine the Constitution as written and ratified.

Oh really, yet nobody has done anything to try and change or fix this for 200+ years? Really?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Brilliant. "This is the twenty-first century. Give up trying to have a good society, and just accept that we're going to impose tyranny on you. Life sucks, it's inevitable."

Tell you what, assmunch. YOU give up YOUR ideology and hopes for the future, and let the rest of us decide whether accepting a shit sandwich without protest is realism or stupidity for ourselves.

Another person who is unable to read and just makes shit up. What does this have to do with anything I've said?
This thread sure shows who the true moron nuts are, unreal

That's EXACTLY what you said, just cut down to the bare, ugly meaning you were trying to hide.

You're right about this thread showing us who the morons and nuts are, though.

Nope, and if you read the rest of the thread, you would know that. that's just your pathetic attempt to make up what the other person said because you can't counter with an intelligent argument.

 

[blu]

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.

yea lets force every state to bow to every demand of the federal government. will make the transition to one world government easier

 

[Murf76]

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.

See... here's what you're missing, aside from the whole Constitution thingey.

There was a REASON why our framers balanced the power of central government with state sovereignty. Central power is prone to corruption, much as we're seeing now in Washington.

Our votes are at their most potent at the State and Local level, where we're big fish in a small pond. We're better able to affect our immediate environment, to tailor legislation to the specific needs of each community. At the national level, our votes are diluted. Our communities are controlled by distant power-broker... a federal aristocracy that's damn near beyond our influence. Hell, with an incumbency rate of 95%, we can't hardly blast the bastards out with dynamite once they're entrenched. With vast central powers, they have their thumbs in too many pies.

The power was supposed to be limited, thus limiting their influence. A federalist system avoids oligarchy, which to the founders' minds was too close for comfort to the monarchist system they'd just broken free of.


There's also a side benefit to Federalism that people don't often consider. When we have 50 States, each solving problems in their own way, not only are they more accountable to the people, they're more innovative as they compete with one another for citizens and businesses. They're forced to balance the social needs of their population with their ability to generate revenues. And the eggs aren't all in one basket. If one State makes poor choices, they don't drag the other 49 down. There's some left standing to pull the fat off the fire.

 

[blu]

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?

do you really think the extreme power the supreme court has now came from the constitution?

does john marshall ring a bell?

 

[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.

See... here's what you're missing, aside from the whole Constitution thingey.

There was a REASON why our framers balanced the power of central government with state sovereignty. Central power is prone to corruption, much as we're seeing now in Washington.

Our votes are at their most potent at the State and Local level, where we're big fish in a small pond. We're better able to affect our immediate environment, to tailor legislation to the specific needs of each community. At the national level, our votes are diluted. Our communities are controlled by distant power-broker... a federal aristocracy that's damn near beyond our influence. Hell, with an incumbency rate of 95%, we can't hardly blast the bastards out with dynamite once they're entrenched. With vast central powers, they have their thumbs in too many pies.

The power was supposed to be limited, thus limiting their influence. A federalist system avoids oligarchy, which to the founders' minds was too close for comfort to the monarchist system they'd just broken free of.


There's also a side benefit to Federalism that people don't often consider. When we have 50 States, each solving problems in their own way, not only are they more accountable to the people, they're more innovative as they compete with one another for citizens and businesses. They're forced to balance the social needs of their population with their ability to generate revenues. And the eggs aren't all in one basket. If one State makes poor choices, they don't drag the other 49 down. There's some left standing to pull the fat off the fire.

Yes, there is some benefits of that, but a lot of time anything federal people go off on and complain its unconstitutional. I'm not advocating total federal control of everything, although I can see how people think that from my OP, which I think other posts have cleared up more. I understand each state has differences and problems that need to be addressed locally. I guess my problem is with some people that think having an FDA, or other federal agencies setting policies is so horrible. ANd yes, I've heard those argument made on this forum. There has to be some laws that are global to all states. And if its "unconstitutional for federal laws, wouldn't it be ruled so?

I guess its the extremists that claim anything federal is unconstitutional and wrong

 

[The T]

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.

See... here's what you're missing, aside from the whole Constitution thingey.

There was a REASON why our framers balanced the power of central government with state sovereignty. Central power is prone to corruption, much as we're seeing now in Washington.

Our votes are at their most potent at the State and Local level, where we're big fish in a small pond. We're better able to affect our immediate environment, to tailor legislation to the specific needs of each community. At the national level, our votes are diluted. Our communities are controlled by distant power-broker... a federal aristocracy that's damn near beyond our influence. Hell, with an incumbency rate of 95%, we can't hardly blast the bastards out with dynamite once they're entrenched. With vast central powers, they have their thumbs in too many pies.

The power was supposed to be limited, thus limiting their influence. A federalist system avoids oligarchy, which to the founders' minds was too close for comfort to the monarchist system they'd just broken free of.


There's also a side benefit to Federalism that people don't often consider. When we have 50 States, each solving problems in their own way, not only are they more accountable to the people, they're more innovative as they compete with one another for citizens and businesses. They're forced to balance the social needs of their population with their ability to generate revenues. And the eggs aren't all in one basket. If one State makes poor choices, they don't drag the other 49 down. There's some left standing to pull the fat off the fire.

TRUTH

 

[Murf76]

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?

Believe so, yeah. And it was deliberately intended to undermine the Constitution as written and ratified.

What's interesting about Marbury is that even as Marshall claimed the right of judicial review for the Supreme Court, he stated clearly in his decision that the legislative powers of Congress are LIMITED by the "written" language of the Constitution.

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

(more...)
Our Documents - Transcript of Marbury v. Madison (1803)