Biden said no Constitutional Amendment is Absolute.

[Slade3200]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

Some would argue that being employed is a form of slavery

No. You can quit any job and move. Slaves cannot do either one.

I wasn’t saying that it’s the exact same thing I said some would consider it a form of slavery... obviously a lesser form. Same can be said about prisoners

YOU ARE CUCKOO

Well then you should be able to easily beat my arguments through intelligent debate instead of name calling.

 

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

The Dred Scott decision did not affirm slavery. It said a Black man had no rights to sue.

That's slavery.

 

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

A constitutional amendment can only be overruled or modified by another amendment.

Nope. It has to be repealed.

 

[Synthaholic]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

You're a dumbass.

 

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

You're a dumbass.

Smarter than you, obviously. You took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

 

[MadChemist]

Who agrees with him?

What exactly did he mean ?

Usually, such comments are made in the context of an issue.

Can you share a little more.

 

[MadChemist]

That means no law is absolute. It means political whores are not bound by laws, and if they're branded properly they never face consequences.

The constitution itself was intended to grow with the country.

There was a structure for doing that and it did not include using the SCOTUS to allow totally bogus laws (i.e. the Roosevelt court).

So if the amendments are not absolute, what are they ?

Did he tell us that.

 

[MadChemist]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

I am not sure just what Scalia said, but there are plenty of examples of the court reversing itself.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Who agrees with him?

Apparently, he is unaware that the U. S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land."
Of course, I seem to recall Kamala Harris saying that the Constitution only holds power, "if you obey it."
The pro-Marxist party in the new administration would like nothing better than to do away with the Constitution and replace it with some Communist document.

 

[hjmick]

The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

1956?

 

[Faun]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

Of course they could challenge it. There can even be an Amendment to the Constitution which reverses the XIII Amendment. So how is Biden wrong?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

Biden doesn't think clearly. His example was you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Of course you can, provided there is a fire. Poor Bidey, you can't use the First Amendment to lie. Lying is what communists do most often so he could not make that admission.

 

[Pellinore]

Technically, Biden is correct. Every part of the Constitution, including the Amendments, can be changed by another Amendment. If you were to post this in 1925, it may seem that Prohibition, being part of the Constitution, was absolute because it was in the Constitution. Obviously, it was not.

That said, usually when this is brought up, it has to do with the First or Second Amendments, and there are plenty of exceptions to the rights they guarantee. There is such thing as unprotected speech or unlawful assembly, for example, and arch-originalist Justice Scalia famously stated in Heller that (paraphrasing) the Second Amendment does not allow any person to own any gun in any situation. The 13th Amendment even has its own built-in exception, for prisoners.

Without knowing the context, then, based on the wording alone, the statement is correct: No Amendment is absolute.