Challenging Constitutionalists

[TemplarKormac]

That opens up the interpretation of the constitution to further politicization.

A practice the Supreme Court has been engaged in already. Given their total divide along party lines, many decisions are driven by the politics instead of the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The constitution did not need to spell it out to authorize it.

Um...

 

[Onyx]

A practice the Supreme Court has been engaged in already. Given their total divide along party lines, many decisions are driven by the politics instead of law.

This has been the case for US history. You cannot eradicate political influences to create an impartial supreme court.

 

[bripat9643]

Not the US Senate, States as in State legislatures.

So the United States constitution is only applicable when the states want it via popular consensus?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are saying individual state legislatures can opt out of a supreme court ruling.

No, he's saying if 2/3 of them agree, then the ruling is null and void.

 

[bripat9643]

A practice the Supreme Court has been engaged in already. Given their total divide along party lines, many decisions are driven by the politics instead of law.

This has been the case for US history. You cannot eradicate political influences to create an impartial supreme court.

Which is why we need secession and nullification.

 

[Onyx]

Um...

Although I on the other hand, will spell out what I meant

The constitution set up the system and how it operates. The supreme courts have these ridiculous powers because it has been authorized by the constitution, whether this was intentional or not.

 

[320 Years of History]

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

Has it escaped you that the Judicial branch has 100% interpretive power and 0% enforcement power? The Justices can say whatever they want. They can interpret the law however they want. Unless the executive branches at federal, state and local levels act to enforce their rulings, it really doesn't matter what the Justices say.

 

[Onyx]

No, he's saying if 2/3 of them agree, then the ruling is null and void.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

You do realize this would have to go on the federal level to some degree before it could be voted on by the state legislatures? That is unless you plan on organizing a grassroots campaign to get all the states to adopt a vote on a supreme court decision.

 

[OKTexas]

Not the US Senate, States as in State legislatures.

So the United States constitution is only applicable when the states want it via popular consensus?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are saying individual state legislatures can opt out of a supreme court ruling.

Who are the only signators to the Constitution and subsequent amendments? If the Sates determine a ruling not to be in accordance with their contract, why shouldn't they, as a group, be able to nullify that decision.

 

[Onyx]

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

Has it escaped you that the Judicial branch has 100% interpretive power and 0% enforcement power?

False.

The Supreme Court has the ability of court order. Failure to follow the orders of the court can make you in contempt of court, which is grounds for impeachment.

The Justices can say whatever they want. They can interpret the law however they want. Unless the executive branches at federal, state and local levels act to enforce their rulings, it really doesn't matter what the Justices say.

If this is true, then my point is the same.

The constitution is just a piece of paper filled with meaningless words.

 

[g5000]

Unlimited powers ? How do you figure ?

At this point, can you tell us what product the government cannot penalize you for not buying?

You are penalized for not buying a house.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of electricity.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of car.

Hell, you are penalized for not having kids!!!

It was not a big leap to penalize you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

 

[OKTexas]

Um...

Although I on the other hand, will spell out what I meant

The constitution set up the system and how it operates. The supreme courts have these ridiculous powers because it has been authorized by the constitution, whether this was intentional or not.

Actually it doesn't, judges are there to apply law and the Constitution, they didn't write them so they have no authority to say they mean something other than what is written.

 

[Onyx]

Who are the only signators to the Constitution and subsequent amendments? It the Sates determine a ruling not to be in accordance with their contract, why shouldn't they, as a group, be able to nullify that decision.

False premise.

All the states agreed to the constitution completely. There was no 2/3rds vote.

Due to the states being divided along political lines, I'd easily imagine the United States would collapse before a Supreme Court ruling was ever overturned by the states. Actually I would just calll it an outright impossibility. The determinations made by the federal government always go deeper than the bare surface.

 

[Onyx]

Actually it doesn't, judges are there to apply law and the Constitution, they didn't write them so they have no authority to say they mean something other than what is written.

False.

They actually do have the authority to interpret the meaning of laws and their constitutionality. This is an obvious duty before a court can apply the law, due to individuals having the perceived right to stand trial.

The judges have these powers, not because they were given them democratically , but because they were allowed to be taken by the constitution. The constitution did in fact give the Judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution, and only put several meager checks and balances to prevent the power from being abused.

 

[OKTexas]

Unlimited powers ? How do you figure ?

At this point, can you tell us what product the government cannot penalize you for not buying?

You are penalized for not buying a house.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of electricity.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of car.

Hell, you are penalized for not having kids!!!

It was not a big leap to penalize you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

Except all but the health insurance are incentivized by tax deductions, SCOTUS invented a new unconstitutional direct tax to penalize you for not buying insurance.

 

[OKTexas]

Who are the only signators to the Constitution and subsequent amendments? It the Sates determine a ruling not to be in accordance with their contract, why shouldn't they, as a group, be able to nullify that decision.

False premise.

All the states agreed to the constitution completely. There was no 2/3rds vote.

Due to the states being divided along political lines, I'd easily imagine the United States would collapse before a Supreme Court ruling was ever overturned by the states. Actually I would just calll it an outright impossibility. The determinations made by the federal government always go deeper than the bare surface.

No dumbass there was a requirement for a 3/4ths vote for ratification initially, and all States did not agree completely, that's why the bill of rights was passed, most of the States insisted on them. Amendments required the same 3/4ths vote of the States for their ratification. And I agree, 2/3rds is too high a threshold, I agree with bipat, it should only require a simple majority of the States to overturn the court.

 

[g5000]

Unlimited powers ? How do you figure ?

At this point, can you tell us what product the government cannot penalize you for not buying?

You are penalized for not buying a house.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of electricity.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of car.

Hell, you are penalized for not having kids!!!

It was not a big leap to penalize you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

Except all but the health insurance are incentivized by tax deductions, SCOTUS invented a new unconstitutional direct tax to penalize you for not buying insurance.

If you don't buy a house, you pay higher taxes than the person who did. You are penalized for not buying a house.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you pay higher taxes than the person who did. You are penalized for not buying the right fridge.

If you don't buy the right kind of health insurance, you pay higher taxes than the person who did. You are penalized for not buying the right insurance.

Our government regulates inactivity!

 

[12icer]

I guess we probably need a constitutional scholar to determine the reality of this thread but since there isn't one here I guess!!!. The fact is the supreme court cannot make laws, it can only determine their constitutionality, their ACTUAL scope and determine the actual applications of the law. When they overstep those assigned duties, they are taking the power of the congress unto themselves and if congress allows it, it is the congress that fails in their legislative duty.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually it doesn't, judges are there to apply law and the Constitution, they didn't write them so they have no authority to say they mean something other than what is written.

False.

They actually do have the authority to interpret the meaning of laws and their constitutionality. This is an obvious duty before a court can apply the law, due to individuals having the perceived right to stand trial.

The judges have these powers, not because they were given them democratically , but because they were allowed to be taken by the constitution. The constitution did in fact give the Judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution, and only put several meager checks and balances to prevent the power from being abused.

They can decide if a law complies with the Constitution, show me in the Constitution where they have the power to say the Constitution itself means something other than what was written.

 

[OKTexas]

Unlimited powers ? How do you figure ?

At this point, can you tell us what product the government cannot penalize you for not buying?

You are penalized for not buying a house.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of electricity.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of car.

Hell, you are penalized for not having kids!!!

It was not a big leap to penalize you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

Except all but the health insurance are incentivized by tax deductions, SCOTUS invented a new unconstitutional direct tax to penalize you for not buying insurance.

If you don't buy a house, you pay higher taxes than the person who did. You are penalized for not buying a house.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you pay higher taxes than the person who did. You are penalized for not buying the right fridge.

If you don't buy the right kind of health insurance, you pay higher taxes than the person who did. You are penalized for not buying the right insurance.

Our government regulates inactivity!

You pay higher taxes if you don't have children also, but the tax on the ACA is levied over and above a taxpayers requirements under the 16th amendment and is triggered by a failure to enter into commerce and not by income as required by the 16th. If I were in a position to have to pay that tax, I would be in federal court challenging it in a heart beat on that basis.