Do you believe in the rule of law ...

[Wry Catcher]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

NO, those things have nothing to do with Rule of Law. Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Are you insane?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

or the law of the jungle?

If by rule of law you mean that the law gets to make special exceptions for certain people, I would prefer to have the law of the jungle. If, on the other hand, by rule of law you all people and institutions are subject to the same law, I fully support it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Actually, it doesn't, but I do find it telling that you bring things up when you oppose them. If you really believed in stare decisis you wouldn't be arguing that SSM is a right under the Constitution because multiple cases have already ruled that it isn't.

By the way, if you believe that the court has the right to overturn laws, why are you so upset about Citizen's United v FEC?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It’s not so much a ‘belief’ as it is a fact of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly. Those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples is evidence of that.

The rule of law means that one’s rights are not subject to majority rule, the majority does not determine who will or will not have his rights, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence.

The rule of law is of course problematic for most conservatives, many of whom will advocate ‘let the states decide’ concerning issues such as abortion, seemingly unaware if the fact that states cannot violate the privacy rights of their residents.

Tell me something, under the rule of law would a law that specifically does not apply to police be allowed?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

NO, those things have nothing to do with Rule of Law. Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Oh do tell how is wade not law...

It is not the Rule of Law to have courts that make up laws, or overturn laws, that is an outgrowth of our government. The rule of law is the principle that laws are applied to everyone equally, even if they are police officers and the government wants to restrict magazines to holding only 7 bullets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

uh yes it is...I dont think you understand what the term means, which is expected

Uh, no it isn't. Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court case. It has little to do with the term "rule of law" which is a philosophical/political concept.
It is no wonder that a 5th grade dropout like yourself confuses these things.

Its a case that makes Abortion legal. Which means rule of law is that Abortion is now legal for citizens.

I know you are stupid, and like to show off how stupid you are, but seriously you are wrong....like usual.

You know just like there may not be separation of church in state in the constitution, but case law makes it basically so government can not promote one religion over another.

Damn, you are even dumber than I thought you were.

 

[DiamondDave]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Actually, it doesn't, but I do find it telling that you bring things up when you oppose them. If you really believed in stare decisis you wouldn't be arguing that SSM is a right under the Constitution because multiple cases have already ruled that it isn't.

By the way, if you believe that the court has the right to overturn laws, why are you so upset about Citizen's United v FEC?

Correct.. because the rule of law was not followed when the judiciary gave themselves power in the judgement.. there was no power granted to the judiciary to grant power and no power to interpret the constitution.. if that power was wanted by the judiciary, there was a means to change the constitution to have that power granted.. that process was not followed

 

[Katzndogz]

The Rule of Law changes on a daily basis.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If WC truly believes in the Rule of Law, he should be horrified at the unfair application of the law towards Tea Party 501c applicants.

I do believe in the rule of law. If a law was violated in the IRS 'scandal' those who failed to comply with the law should be punished. Law violations require proof, allegations repeated over and over on a message board by partisan parrots does not constitute proof.

Again, that is not the rule of law, that is the presumption of innocence, a totally independent principle. The rule of law, if you actually believed in it, would require that all organizations be treated the same way even if it didn't break a law.

 

[The Rabbi]

If WC truly believes in the Rule of Law, he should be horrified at the unfair application of the law towards Tea Party 501c applicants.

I do believe in the rule of law. If a law was violated in the IRS 'scandal' those who failed to comply with the law should be punished. Law violations require proof, allegations repeated over and over on a message board by partisan parrots does not constitute proof.

Again, that is not the rule of law, that is the presumption of innocence, a totally independent principle. The rule of law, if you actually believed in it, would require that all organizations be treated the same way even if it didn't break a law.

This is why libs are stupid. They do not even understand the concepts they are trying to discuss. Muddled thinking due to poor knowledge base. IN that environment they will believe anything,like the US is controlled by multi national corporations which are manipulating the economy. Or oil companies getting subsidies.

 

[B. Kidd]

Here is your rule of law:

There is a secret agency.
It has secret spy programs.
It submits its request to a secret court.
The secret court always says yes to the secret agency.
The secret courts rulings are secret.
The secret agency tells some of what it does to a few congressmen.
The few congressmen have to keep a secret about what they find out.

But don't worry, everything they do is legal.

 

[Spoonman]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

you left out citizens united and stand your ground

 

[Plasmaball]

NO, those things have nothing to do with Rule of Law. Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Oh do tell how is wade not law...

It is not the Rule of Law to have courts that make up laws, or overturn laws, that is an outgrowth of our government. The rule of law is the principle that laws are applied to everyone equally, even if they are police officers and the government wants to restrict magazines to holding only 7 bullets.

make.up.laws.

okie dokie

 

[Plasmaball]

Uh, no it isn't. Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court case. It has little to do with the term "rule of law" which is a philosophical/political concept.
It is no wonder that a 5th grade dropout like yourself confuses these things.

Its a case that makes Abortion legal. Which means rule of law is that Abortion is now legal for citizens.

I know you are stupid, and like to show off how stupid you are, but seriously you are wrong....like usual.

You know just like there may not be separation of church in state in the constitution, but case law makes it basically so government can not promote one religion over another.

Damn, you are even dumber than I thought you were.

dont worry you stating this gas zero meaning.

 

[The Rabbi]

Its a case that makes Abortion legal. Which means rule of law is that Abortion is now legal for citizens.

I know you are stupid, and like to show off how stupid you are, but seriously you are wrong....like usual.

You know just like there may not be separation of church in state in the constitution, but case law makes it basically so government can not promote one religion over another.

Damn, you are even dumber than I thought you were.

dont worry you stating this gas zero meaning.

You're right. Stating it has zero meaning. But he is merely pointing out the reality from your own posts, which means it is true.

 

[Plasmaball]

Damn, you are even dumber than I thought you were.

dont worry you stating this gas zero meaning.

You're right. Stating it has zero meaning. But he is merely pointing out the reality from your own posts, which means it is true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh do tell how is wade not law...

It is not the Rule of Law to have courts that make up laws, or overturn laws, that is an outgrowth of our government. The rule of law is the principle that laws are applied to everyone equally, even if they are police officers and the government wants to restrict magazines to holding only 7 bullets.

make.up.laws.

okie dokie

Do I have to spell this out for you? All laws are made up, which is why most of them are bad.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The rule of law includes Stare Decisis, Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Actually, it doesn't, but I do find it telling that you bring things up when you oppose them. If you really believed in stare decisis you wouldn't be arguing that SSM is a right under the Constitution because multiple cases have already ruled that it isn't.

By the way, if you believe that the court has the right to overturn laws, why are you so upset about Citizen's United v FEC?

CU v. FEC upsets the fabric of one man, one vote. I know you will find that silly for it is an abstraction a concrete thinker cannot fathom. To be concise, money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts absolutely.

Correct.. because the rule of law was not followed when the judiciary gave themselves power in the judgement.. there was no power granted to the judiciary to grant power and no power to interpret the constitution.. if that power was wanted by the judiciary, there was a means to change the constitution to have that power granted.. that process was not followed

So you would like to throw out over two centuries of Jurisprudence, is that correct? You have concluded you know better than all of the Justices of the Supreme Court, correct?

So, since you would not make such a claim lightly, I'm sure you will explain within Article III, Sec. 2 what limits were imposed to prevent Judicial Review. Please post a reasoned, concise and compelling argument to support 'your' opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, it doesn't, but I do find it telling that you bring things up when you oppose them. If you really believed in stare decisis you wouldn't be arguing that SSM is a right under the Constitution because multiple cases have already ruled that it isn't.

By the way, if you believe that the court has the right to overturn laws, why are you so upset about Citizen's United v FEC?

CU v. FEC upsets the fabric of one man, one vote. I know you will find that silly for it is an abstraction a concrete thinker cannot fathom. To be concise, money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts absolutely.

Correct.. because the rule of law was not followed when the judiciary gave themselves power in the judgement.. there was no power granted to the judiciary to grant power and no power to interpret the constitution.. if that power was wanted by the judiciary, there was a means to change the constitution to have that power granted.. that process was not followed

So you would like to throw out over two centuries of Jurisprudence, is that correct? You have concluded you know better than all of the Justices of the Supreme Court, correct?

So, since you would not make such a claim lightly, I'm sure you will explain within Article III, Sec. 2 what limits were imposed to prevent Judicial Review. Please post a reasoned, concise and compelling argument to support 'your' opinion.

Two centuries of jurisprudence?

Tell me something, what evidence do you have outside Obama's speech that there is any jurisprudence that backs up your claim?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is not the Rule of Law to have courts that make up laws, or overturn laws, that is an outgrowth of our government. The rule of law is the principle that laws are applied to everyone equally, even if they are police officers and the government wants to restrict magazines to holding only 7 bullets.

make.up.laws.

okie dokie

Do I have to spell this out for you? All laws are made up, which is why most of them are bad.

So, may I infer you would prefer to live in Somalia, where might makes right and everyone is armed with an automatic weapon, no taxes are collected and your water would need to be boiled.