Anyone remember the election in 2006?

[Listening]

The SCOTUS interprets the General Welfare Clause......which means they get to say what it means or they get to tell us what the Constitution meant for it to say? .

That's right! And what they say is, your position is full of shit!

The Commerce Clause has been used to justify the use of federal laws in matters that do not on their face implicate interstate trade or exchange. Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). In 1905, the Court used the Commerce Clause to halt price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, when it ruled that Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It found that business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905).

If Congress has the authority to halt price fixing as codified in Gibbons v. Ogden, then they have the authority to halt price fixing in the healthcare industry.

I am sorry to tell you that the Court said that the Commerce Clause argument did not work in this case and Chuck Schumer went so far as to whine about the way the decision was worded.

Top Dem Accuses John Roberts Of Breaking His Promise | TPMDC

Try again.

 

[Dante]

General Welfare Clause, gets to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. It does on some level get interpreted by the Executive and Legislative branches, but the final arbiter is the SCOTUS.

Now people like you despise the American system, so you hide behind old, lost battles of yesteryear.

Even an 'originalist' like Scalia is more like Marshall than wingnuts care to admit. Scalia, like Marshall, has sacrifice his ideology for the Court's Institutional Reputation. Scalia is an ideologue, but not as extreme as some people think when you parse where, when, and how his extremism kicks in.

People are always arguing about Marshall because he defined the roles of the branches in ways people like you misunderstand and misread. It has been written about much that Marshall would err on the side of the 'people' speaking through the Legislature on big issues of the day. He never tried to push the country where it had not already been heading.

Judicial review: It wasn't completely settled, but it was not a new concept by the time Marshall put it into play. Ignoring much of history is what happens when you get stuck on an argument and take stands on issues out of a full context

ROTFLMAO

The SCOTUS interprets the General Welfare Clause......which means they get to say what it means or they get to tell us what the Constitution meant for it to say ?

This is hysterical.

Please don't throw context at me when it is clear you have no value for it.

Context includes a few hundred years of precedent as well as general agreement among sane, reasonable, and rational people of all stripes.

The SCOTUS decides if a law passes constitutional muster.

sucks to be you

 

[Dante]

The SCOTUS interprets the General Welfare Clause......which means they get to say what it means or they get to tell us what the Constitution meant for it to say? .

That's right! And what they say is, your position is full of shit!

The Commerce Clause has been used to justify the use of federal laws in matters that do not on their face implicate interstate trade or exchange. Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). In 1905, the Court used the Commerce Clause to halt price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, when it ruled that Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It found that business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905).

If Congress has the authority to halt price fixing as codified in Gibbons v. Ogden, then they have the authority to halt price fixing in the healthcare industry.

I am sorry to tell you that the Court said that the Commerce Clause argument did not work in this case and Chuck Schumer went so far as to whine about the way the decision was worded.

Top Dem Accuses John Roberts Of Breaking His Promise | TPMDC

Try again.

...as you whine about most of US History and US Supreme Court decisions.

hey, it's a free country. want some cheese with that whine?

 

[Dante]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...rson-nullification-and-the-supreme-court.html

Bat-Crazy Jefferson, Nullification, and the Supreme Court​

source:::

Jeffrey Rosen: The Supreme Court
The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America​

paraphrased comments: Jefferson's views became extreme. His hatred of the Supreme Court under his cousin Chief Justice John Marshall drove him to distraction. Jefferson took the view that constitutional change could only come through the amendment process, and that the court had no role in striking down laws as unconstitutional.

Madison had to go against his friend and remind the bat-crazed Jefferson that the Framers of the US Constitution "clearly intended to make the court the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal governments."

---

Sure, people like the tea Party whackos and others like to appeal to the authority of Jefferson and Madison, but Jefferson and Madison were all over the place on issues regarding what the Constitution meant and the intent of the Framers.

Jefferson and Madison 'secretly' drafted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, based on the idea that state legislatures had the authority to interpret the Constitution. The argument is that the Union is a compact among independent and sovereign states. The framers according to this argument made no decision about who was the 'ultimate interpreter' of the Constitution: nullification!!!

but: The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws.

 

[whitehall]

You gotta laugh. The left never stops whining about the unfairness of only controlling 2/3 of the federal government. Don't you understand that the "health care law" is as long as a Stephen King novel and twice as scary? Nobody including the people who voted for it know what's in it. It's a crazy piece of legislation that democrats passed by intimidation and bribery when they had the majority in both houses of congress. Ever wonder why they all got kicked out the next year?

 

[Listening]

General Welfare Clause, gets to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. It does on some level get interpreted by the Executive and Legislative branches, but the final arbiter is the SCOTUS.

Now people like you despise the American system, so you hide behind old, lost battles of yesteryear.

Even an 'originalist' like Scalia is more like Marshall than wingnuts care to admit. Scalia, like Marshall, has sacrifice his ideology for the Court's Institutional Reputation. Scalia is an ideologue, but not as extreme as some people think when you parse where, when, and how his extremism kicks in.

People are always arguing about Marshall because he defined the roles of the branches in ways people like you misunderstand and misread. It has been written about much that Marshall would err on the side of the 'people' speaking through the Legislature on big issues of the day. He never tried to push the country where it had not already been heading.

Judicial review: It wasn't completely settled, but it was not a new concept by the time Marshall put it into play. Ignoring much of history is what happens when you get stuck on an argument and take stands on issues out of a full context

ROTFLMAO

The SCOTUS interprets the General Welfare Clause......which means they get to say what it means or they get to tell us what the Constitution meant for it to say ?

This is hysterical.

Please don't throw context at me when it is clear you have no value for it.

Context includes a few hundred years of precedent as well as general agreement among sane, reasonable, and rational people of all stripes.

The SCOTUS decides if a law passes constitutional muster.

sucks to be you

Only the precedent that fits your argument.

Anymore...SCOTUS just decides if a law can stand.

Otherwise, the women who march on the SCOTUS in honor of Roe v. Wade are just paranoid.....or maybe it could be overturned.....

And if it was...what was it constitutional part of the time ?

I've never investigated Andrew Jackson's response to the SCOTUS....maybe it is time I did.

 

[Dante]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...madison-what-little-you-think-you-know-4.html

Some of the people that helped write the Constitution refused to sign the finished document.
Article one, Section eight, clause eighteen, the necessary and proper clause, gave the Congress some leeway in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not.
The Amendment process is difficult and only 27 have passed thus far and there are a few proposals still floating around with no termination date. The California Constitution, for example, is easier to amend and it probably has close to five hundred amendments.

The biggie in changing the Constitution has been simple useage and Court decisions. The Court was never given the power per se to interpret the Constitution nor declare a law of Congress unconstitutional but it took that power unto itself in 1803.

The Federalist papers were simply letters to the editor by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. All wanted the Constitution to be ratified. Of the nine states required to ratify some of the votes were fairly close.

It was not believed there would be political parties so no accomodation was made in the Constitution. But the battle over ratification began the political parties.

Had Jefferson been at the convention we might have a different document today. He was in Paris.

The convention was held in secret, and supposedly no word got out. But after a hard day debating some of the delegates would meet in the local taverns.

The antiFederalists, later to be the Jeffersonians later to be the Republicans, and finally to become today's Democratic party insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would vote for ratification.

Repeating the misinformed, ignorant myth that the Supreme Court took the power to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional unto itself in 1803, shows how little you know. Judicial review as a constitutional principle had been growing in the 15 years since the adoption of the US Constitution. According to Jeffrey Rosen, in his book The Supreme Court (2006), the status of judicial review was growing but not a foregone conclusion before Marbury. The founders and framers were in constant disagreement over many things. But judicial review has been the bedrock of the Supreme Court's power for most of American history.

Jefferson and Madison, and their Republican compatriots, lost many battles to Hamilton and Marshall, and their Federalist brethren. This was one of them. Madison and other ended up supporting the Federalist principle. Jefferson as a hold out -- alone in his madness -- ends up a pathetic figure clinging to an imaginary utopian world where his principles and romanticism trumped reality. Sort of like a Ron Paul with a slave holding Plantation/Mansion in Virginia.

 

[Listening]

That's right! And what they say is, your position is full of shit!

If Congress has the authority to halt price fixing as codified in Gibbons v. Ogden, then they have the authority to halt price fixing in the healthcare industry.

I am sorry to tell you that the Court said that the Commerce Clause argument did not work in this case and Chuck Schumer went so far as to whine about the way the decision was worded.

Top Dem Accuses John Roberts Of Breaking His Promise | TPMDC

Try again.

...as you whine about most of US History and US Supreme Court decisions.

hey, it's a free country. want some cheese with that whine?

I understand....

Can't address the point....

Draw attention away from it by acting like a dick.

Good job.

 

[Dante]

ROTFLMAO

The SCOTUS interprets the General Welfare Clause......which means they get to say what it means or they get to tell us what the Constitution meant for it to say ?

This is hysterical.

Please don't throw context at me when it is clear you have no value for it.

Context includes a few hundred years of precedent as well as general agreement among sane, reasonable, and rational people of all stripes.

The SCOTUS decides if a law passes constitutional muster.

sucks to be you

Only the precedent that fits your argument.

Anymore...SCOTUS just decides if a law can stand.

Otherwise, the women who march on the SCOTUS in honor of Roe v. Wade are just paranoid.....or maybe it could be overturned.....

And if it was...what was it constitutional part of the time ?

I've never investigated Andrew Jackson's response to the SCOTUS....maybe it is time I did.

The SCOTUS gets to revisit and so what? Like I said before, you are stuck fight old battles from yesteryear.

Living in the past? Poor loser

 

[Listening]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...madison-what-little-you-think-you-know-4.html

Some of the people that helped write the Constitution refused to sign the finished document.
Article one, Section eight, clause eighteen, the necessary and proper clause, gave the Congress some leeway in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not.
The Amendment process is difficult and only 27 have passed thus far and there are a few proposals still floating around with no termination date. The California Constitution, for example, is easier to amend and it probably has close to five hundred amendments.

The biggie in changing the Constitution has been simple useage and Court decisions. The Court was never given the power per se to interpret the Constitution nor declare a law of Congress unconstitutional but it took that power unto itself in 1803.

The Federalist papers were simply letters to the editor by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. All wanted the Constitution to be ratified. Of the nine states required to ratify some of the votes were fairly close.

It was not believed there would be political parties so no accomodation was made in the Constitution. But the battle over ratification began the political parties.

Had Jefferson been at the convention we might have a different document today. He was in Paris.

The convention was held in secret, and supposedly no word got out. But after a hard day debating some of the delegates would meet in the local taverns.

The antiFederalists, later to be the Jeffersonians later to be the Republicans, and finally to become today's Democratic party insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would vote for ratification.

Repeating the misinformed, ignorant myth that the Supreme Court took the power to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional unto itself in 1803, shows how little you know. Judicial review as a constitutional principle had been growing in the 15 years since the adoption of the US Constitution. According to Jeffrey Rosen, in his book The Supreme Court (2006), the status of judicial review was growing but not a foregone conclusion before Marbury. The founders and framers were in constant disagreement over many things. But judicial review has been the bedrock of the Supreme Court's power for most of American history.

Jefferson and Madison, and their Republican compatriots, lost many battles to Hamilton and Marshall, and their Federalist brethren. This was one of them. Madison and other ended up supporting the Federalist principle. Jefferson as a hold out -- alone in his madness -- ends up a pathetic figure clinging to an imaginary utopian world where his principles and romanticism trumped reality. Sort of like a Ron Paul with a slave holding Plantation/Mansion in Virginia.

[Yawning]

Been here...seen that.

 

[Listening]

Context includes a few hundred years of precedent as well as general agreement among sane, reasonable, and rational people of all stripes.

The SCOTUS decides if a law passes constitutional muster.

sucks to be you

Only the precedent that fits your argument.

Anymore...SCOTUS just decides if a law can stand.

Otherwise, the women who march on the SCOTUS in honor of Roe v. Wade are just paranoid.....or maybe it could be overturned.....

And if it was...what was it constitutional part of the time ?

I've never investigated Andrew Jackson's response to the SCOTUS....maybe it is time I did.

The SCOTUS gets to revisit and so what? Like I said before, you are stuck fight old battles from yesteryear.

Living in the past? Poor loser

Still making up strawmen ?

And you didn't answer the question. Which, of course, is probably more found in your love of people like Douglas (reported to have said...the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean).

I guess we the people are the MIB.

By definition...nobody has ever lost...only suffered setbacks.

 

[Dante]

Only the precedent that fits your argument.

Anymore...SCOTUS just decides if a law can stand.

Otherwise, the women who march on the SCOTUS in honor of Roe v. Wade are just paranoid.....or maybe it could be overturned.....

And if it was...what was it constitutional part of the time ?

I've never investigated Andrew Jackson's response to the SCOTUS....maybe it is time I did.

The SCOTUS gets to revisit and so what? Like I said before, you are stuck fight old battles from yesteryear.

Living in the past? Poor loser

Still making up strawmen ?

And you didn't answer the question. Which, of course, is probably more found in your love of people like Douglas (reported to have said...the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean).

I guess we the people are the MIB.

By definition...nobody has ever lost...only suffered setbacks.

do you even know what a straw man is? what about the differences between a straw man and a red herring?

setbacks? Like slavery and Jim Crow being decided as unconstitutional?

 

[Listening]

The SCOTUS gets to revisit and so what? Like I said before, you are stuck fight old battles from yesteryear.

Living in the past? Poor loser

Still making up strawmen ?

And you didn't answer the question. Which, of course, is probably more found in your love of people like Douglas (reported to have said...the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean).

I guess we the people are the MIB.

By definition...nobody has ever lost...only suffered setbacks.

do you even know what a straw man is? what about the differences between a straw man and a red herring?

setbacks? Like slavery and Jim Crow being decided as unconstitutional?

How about Citizens United ?

Are people quitting on that one ?

Didn't think so.

Slavery was not unconstitutional prior to the 13th....

The 13th granted everyone the same rights (making slavery illegal.....).

 

[Dante]

Still making up strawmen ?

And you didn't answer the question. Which, of course, is probably more found in your love of people like Douglas (reported to have said...the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean).

I guess we the people are the MIB.

By definition...nobody has ever lost...only suffered setbacks.

do you even know what a straw man is? what about the differences between a straw man and a red herring?

setbacks? Like slavery and Jim Crow being decided as unconstitutional?

How about Citizens United ?

Are people quitting on that one ?

Didn't think so.

Slavery was not unconstitutional prior to the 13th....

The 13th granted everyone the same rights (making slavery illegal.....).

Stop being a moron. I abhor Citizens United, but I respect the Courts wrong headed decision.

In Citizens United, the court went out of it's way to bring in so many things outside of the original arguments it set a very bad precedent, and did a disservice to the reputation of the Institution. Scalia sometimes goes too far in his ideology when it comes to the far right 'economic' view of Constitutional law -- put forth by the Federalist Society of the last few decades. -- It is why I wrote Scalia is not always the originalist people imagine -- when, where, and how Scalia becomes ideological is interesting.

Justice Kennedy wrote some inanity about money not being a corrupting influence in the political process. Sort of like Alan Greenspan and his dogma on market self-correction before his mea culpa after the 2007/2008 economic fiasco.

Academics who are Ideologues are dangerous. They cannot see the forset for the trees and they don't have to, because all they ever do is they write and lecture about it all. They do not live in the real world, as Romney and his Super Wealthy pals do not live in the real world

Slavery was not unconstitutional in the national document -- correct. It only violated the spirit and words of the Declaration of Independence and...

 

[Listening]

do you even know what a straw man is? what about the differences between a straw man and a red herring?

setbacks? Like slavery and Jim Crow being decided as unconstitutional?

How about Citizens United ?

Are people quitting on that one ?

Didn't think so.

Slavery was not unconstitutional prior to the 13th....

The 13th granted everyone the same rights (making slavery illegal.....).

Stop being a moron. I abhor Citizens United, but I respect the Courts wrong headed decision.

In Citizens United, the court went out of it's way to bring in so many things outside of the original arguments it set a very bad precedent, and did a disservice to the reputation of the Institution. Scalia sometimes goes too far in his ideology when it comes to the far right 'economic' view of Constitutional law -- put forth by the Federalist Society of the last few decades. -- It is why I wrote Scalia is not always the originalist people imagine -- when, where, and how Scalia becomes ideological is interesting.

Justice Kennedy wrote some inanity about money not being a corrupting influence in the political process. Sort of like Alan Greenspan and his dogma before his mea culpa after the 2007/2008 economic fiasco

Slavery was not unconstitutional in the national document -- correct. It only violated the spirit and words of the Declaration of Independence and...

Oh gosh......it was bad precedent.

And it will be revisited (or I hope it will be).

So that was my relevant example of a set back.....and I can guarantee you people don't see it as settled.

You need to get some sleep.

 

[Dante]

How about Citizens United ?

Are people quitting on that one ?

Didn't think so.

Slavery was not unconstitutional prior to the 13th....

The 13th granted everyone the same rights (making slavery illegal.....).

Stop being a moron. I abhor Citizens United, but I respect the Courts wrong headed decision.

In Citizens United, the court went out of it's way to bring in so many things outside of the original arguments it set a very bad precedent, and did a disservice to the reputation of the Institution. Scalia sometimes goes too far in his ideology when it comes to the far right 'economic' view of Constitutional law -- put forth by the Federalist Society of the last few decades. -- It is why I wrote Scalia is not always the originalist people imagine -- when, where, and how Scalia becomes ideological is interesting.

Justice Kennedy wrote some inanity about money not being a corrupting influence in the political process. Sort of like Alan Greenspan and his dogma before his mea culpa after the 2007/2008 economic fiasco

Slavery was not unconstitutional in the national document -- correct. It only violated the spirit and words of the Declaration of Independence and...

Oh gosh......it was bad precedent.

And it will be revisited (or I hope it will be).

So that was my relevant example of a set back.....and I can guarantee you people don't see it as settled.

You need to get some sleep.

while you are correct in stating there are obvious similarities (how fucked up is that?), you neglect to acknowledge the distinctions with a difference, and the nuances of individual cases that are revisited. You argue with similarities and sort of moral equivalency to make a weak case? Judged on their own outside a partisan argument of 'look everyone favors overturning or revisiting' decisions they do not like --- in this context your observation is irrelevant and sophomoric at best.

Citizens United was judicial activism at its best or worst, depending on which side you are on .. reality or denial. My opposition to CU is that is part of a pattern of laws and reviews by the courts put into place decades ago by an Oligarchical elite which does not hide in the shadows. They are out in the open .. and now so as never before

 

[Listening]

Stop being a moron. I abhor Citizens United, but I respect the Courts wrong headed decision.

In Citizens United, the court went out of it's way to bring in so many things outside of the original arguments it set a very bad precedent, and did a disservice to the reputation of the Institution. Scalia sometimes goes too far in his ideology when it comes to the far right 'economic' view of Constitutional law -- put forth by the Federalist Society of the last few decades. -- It is why I wrote Scalia is not always the originalist people imagine -- when, where, and how Scalia becomes ideological is interesting.

Justice Kennedy wrote some inanity about money not being a corrupting influence in the political process. Sort of like Alan Greenspan and his dogma before his mea culpa after the 2007/2008 economic fiasco

Slavery was not unconstitutional in the national document -- correct. It only violated the spirit and words of the Declaration of Independence and...

Oh gosh......it was bad precedent.

And it will be revisited (or I hope it will be).

So that was my relevant example of a set back.....and I can guarantee you people don't see it as settled.

You need to get some sleep.

while you are correct in stating there are obvious similarities (how fucked up is that?), you neglect to acknowledge the distinctions with a difference, and the nuances of individual cases that are revisited. You argue with similarities and sort of moral equivalency to make a weak case? Judged on their own outside a partisan argument of 'look everyone favors overturning or revisiting' decisions they do not like --- in this context your observation is irrelevant and sophomoric at best.

Citizens United was judicial activism at its best or worst, depending on which side you are on .. reality or denial. My opposition to CU is that is part of a pattern of laws and reviews by the courts put into place decades ago by an Oligarchical elite which does not hide in the shadows. They are out in the open .. and now so as never before

You don't seem to rooted in anything except what fits your purposes.

Sorry to have upset your fantasy.

 

[Dante]

Oh gosh......it was bad precedent.

And it will be revisited (or I hope it will be).

So that was my relevant example of a set back.....and I can guarantee you people don't see it as settled.

You need to get some sleep.

while you are correct in stating there are obvious similarities (how fucked up is that?), you neglect to acknowledge the distinctions with a difference, and the nuances of individual cases that are revisited. You argue with similarities and sort of moral equivalency to make a weak case? Judged on their own outside a partisan argument of 'look everyone favors overturning or revisiting' decisions they do not like --- in this context your observation is irrelevant and sophomoric at best.

Citizens United was judicial activism at its best or worst, depending on which side you are on .. reality or denial. My opposition to CU is that is part of a pattern of laws and reviews by the courts put into place decades ago by an Oligarchical elite which does not hide in the shadows. They are out in the open .. and now so as never before

You don't seem to rooted in anything except what fits your purposes.

Sorry to have upset your fantasy.

okay