Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Dec 28, 2014.
A dissenting opinion.
Did the *Founders intend for a state to be able to take property without compensation?
Wait...lets finish your game. Why did you present a dissenting opinion as valid case law?
And we still need to get to your point...your ultimate question or gotcha moment has gotta be close, because you have effectively begun to bore me.
a Majority opinion by the Marshall Court Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute
sequence of events: The Marshall Court rules. The 14th becomes law. A dissenting opinion highlights this and get this -- later upheld to have been the more just opinion.
So do you cherry pick your opinions? If so you are still using the Court's rulings
Do you believe in Judicial Review? If no, how do you choose what to guide you?
I am trying to get you to your point without playing the games. You have taken what could have been an interesting discussion and turned it into USMB nonsense. I thought you were better than that.
What would you like to discuss?
Why can't members like Nutz answer without using what appears to be a fallacious statement or purposefully using an ignorant understanding of what is being asked?
Again, what would you like to discuss? Don't you think you are attempting an unfair, juvenile exercise to have people answer your questions without knowing the point you are trying to make. It is a flawed tactic of debate as justified logic becomes logic justified.
If people are going to keep using arguments based on what the *Founders thought, meant, said, wanted, while ignoring later amendments, where are we headed?
If people do not get a simple not complex question about Constitution protections during the times/era of the *Founders -- geesh.
Separate names with a comma.