Is This Unconstitutional?

[CorvusRexus]

So if you deem it unconstitutional...it's unconstitutional? Gee, if we only had a court that could make such determinations....

A Court not elected by the People that may be part of the problem? Oh, we have that.

Yes we do. Do you know why?

In part, to prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority; i.e. to protect the minority. This is why a person's rights should never be put up to popular vote. I have no unusual body piercings. I think neck tattoos are incredibly unattractive. If we were to have a national referendum to either outlaw them or appoint judges who would do so, the thin minority of those who partake will likely have to cover them or get fined.

Would "we" do this? Of course those who sponsor such idiotic notions as electing judges who will make popular decisions lest they get voted out of office by becoming unpopular will say "no". History reveals otherwise.

A Court that stands for what it was intended and keeps the Gov't that appoints them for life in line? Nope.

If you live in the 50 states, you live in the greatest civilization ever fielded...by far. There are no close seconds. Adjusting for climate, inflation, per capita, etc...there are no close seconds. Yet ignorant ***** such as yourself seem to think there is some thing you're being deprived of and are ready to go to war.

Like you buddy Drake (I'm pretty sure he's reading this at the same time you are)...go for it and see how popular your views are loser. Some philosopher onces said that "when you set your course for revenge, first dig two graves." Supposedly one for whomever you're going after and one for yourself. In your case, one for yourself will suffice.

Fine. Confession time about Flake. I did know him. And hated him. His claims of handing over rule after an ill-thought war were most likely lies. All through school I can still remember his incessant claims of having the ability to rule the world someday. He struck me as an arrogant bastard, quite honestly. I also could have sworn he was quite literally insane. And if he is reading this, than that was quite an impressive disappearing act, Drake.

In regards to the rest, I love living in America, and would hate a war if one were to break out. I acknowledge the immense privilege of being an American citizen, but I also ask myself the question, "Does living in the best place there is make it the best place possible?" And the answer to that is no. I am sure even you would agree America still ahs room for improvement. So how is seeking that change that I believe to be better voted on peacefully and thus established wrong?

Here's an idea. Perhaps instead of all SCOTUS justices being appointed, only four are and the other five are elected by region: Midwest, West, Southeast. Southwest, and East Coast. Also imposing term limits on SCOTUS members. That way power is still retained by the Feds but also restored to the people. If a law banning things like neck piercings- as you used as an example- were proposed, the Fed side could say "no" and would win unless the regions voted unanimously, which probably wouldn't happen. Would this be agreeable to you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A Court not elected by the People that may be part of the problem? Oh, we have that.

Yes we do. Do you know why?

In part, to prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority; i.e. to protect the minority. This is why a person's rights should never be put up to popular vote. I have no unusual body piercings. I think neck tattoos are incredibly unattractive. If we were to have a national referendum to either outlaw them or appoint judges who would do so, the thin minority of those who partake will likely have to cover them or get fined.

Would "we" do this? Of course those who sponsor such idiotic notions as electing judges who will make popular decisions lest they get voted out of office by becoming unpopular will say "no". History reveals otherwise.

A Court that stands for what it was intended and keeps the Gov't that appoints them for life in line? Nope.

If you live in the 50 states, you live in the greatest civilization ever fielded...by far. There are no close seconds. Adjusting for climate, inflation, per capita, etc...there are no close seconds. Yet ignorant ***** such as yourself seem to think there is some thing you're being deprived of and are ready to go to war.

Like you buddy Drake (I'm pretty sure he's reading this at the same time you are)...go for it and see how popular your views are loser. Some philosopher onces said that "when you set your course for revenge, first dig two graves." Supposedly one for whomever you're going after and one for yourself. In your case, one for yourself will suffice.

Fine. Confession time about Flake. I did know him. And hated him. His claims of handing over rule after an ill-thought war were most likely lies. All through school I can still remember his incessant claims of having the ability to rule the world someday. He struck me as an arrogant bastard, quite honestly. I also could have sworn he was quite literally insane. And if he is reading this, than that was quite an impressive disappearing act, Drake.

In regards to the rest, I love living in America, and would hate a war if one were to break out. I acknowledge the immense privilege of being an American citizen, but I also ask myself the question, "Does living in the best place there is make it the best place possible?" And the answer to that is no. I am sure even you would agree America still ahs room for improvement. So how is seeking that change that I believe to be better voted on peacefully and thus established wrong?

Here's an idea. Perhaps instead of all SCOTUS justices being appointed, only four are and the other five are elected by region: Midwest, West, Southeast. Southwest, and East Coast. Also imposing term limits on SCOTUS members. That way power is still retained by the Feds but also restored to the people. If a law banning things like neck piercings- as you used as an example- were proposed, the Fed side could say "no" and would win unless the regions voted unanimously, which probably wouldn't happen. Would this be agreeable to you?

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. Something that is not likely to happen.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "**** off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go **** OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

no

but the Fed has absolute dominion. States are only allowed to ignore laws that liberals don't like. like dope and illegal aliens.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Yes we do. Do you know why?

In part, to prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority; i.e. to protect the minority. This is why a person's rights should never be put up to popular vote. I have no unusual body piercings. I think neck tattoos are incredibly unattractive. If we were to have a national referendum to either outlaw them or appoint judges who would do so, the thin minority of those who partake will likely have to cover them or get fined.

Would "we" do this? Of course those who sponsor such idiotic notions as electing judges who will make popular decisions lest they get voted out of office by becoming unpopular will say "no". History reveals otherwise.





If you live in the 50 states, you live in the greatest civilization ever fielded...by far. There are no close seconds. Adjusting for climate, inflation, per capita, etc...there are no close seconds. Yet ignorant ***** such as yourself seem to think there is some thing you're being deprived of and are ready to go to war.

Like you buddy Drake (I'm pretty sure he's reading this at the same time you are)...go for it and see how popular your views are loser. Some philosopher onces said that "when you set your course for revenge, first dig two graves." Supposedly one for whomever you're going after and one for yourself. In your case, one for yourself will suffice.

Fine. Confession time about Flake. I did know him. And hated him. His claims of handing over rule after an ill-thought war were most likely lies. All through school I can still remember his incessant claims of having the ability to rule the world someday. He struck me as an arrogant bastard, quite honestly. I also could have sworn he was quite literally insane. And if he is reading this, than that was quite an impressive disappearing act, Drake.

In regards to the rest, I love living in America, and would hate a war if one were to break out. I acknowledge the immense privilege of being an American citizen, but I also ask myself the question, "Does living in the best place there is make it the best place possible?" And the answer to that is no. I am sure even you would agree America still ahs room for improvement. So how is seeking that change that I believe to be better voted on peacefully and thus established wrong?

Here's an idea. Perhaps instead of all SCOTUS justices being appointed, only four are and the other five are elected by region: Midwest, West, Southeast. Southwest, and East Coast. Also imposing term limits on SCOTUS members. That way power is still retained by the Feds but also restored to the people. If a law banning things like neck piercings- as you used as an example- were proposed, the Fed side could say "no" and would win unless the regions voted unanimously, which probably wouldn't happen. Would this be agreeable to you?

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. Something that is not likely to happen.

Oh, I am proposing a complete overhaul to update it and the basic structure of the government. A new Constitutional Convention, if you will.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

(Shrug) The federal gov't agreed to abide by the Constitution. If they break it clearly, I am of the opinion that a second temporary breach in order to rectify the first is justified. In this case, passing legislation to nullify unconstitutional laws, and then resubmitting to federal authority after they have recognized the local law to be legitimate.

So if you deem it unconstitutional...it's unconstitutional? Gee, if we only had a court that could make such determinations....

A Court not elected by the People that may be part of the problem? Oh, we have that.
A Court that stands for what it was intended and keeps the Gov't that appoints them for life in line? Nope.

Incorrect.

Judges on the Federal courts are elected indirectly, just like the president – when one votes for a presidential candidate he is also voting for the judges that president will nominate to fill Federal vacancies, and those nominated must be confirmed by the Senate, whose members are elected by the people.

This is the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, guaranteeing a republican form of government, representative democracy – where ‘pure democracy’ poses a threat to our civil liberties.

And as already correctly noted, to ensure our civil liberties are safeguarded, the Constitution and its case law are the supreme law of the land, where one’s civil liberties are not determined by ‘majority rule,’ and neither a ‘National referendum’ nor a city or county government may through the political process decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

It is understood that you and others on the right are unhappy with current Constitutional jurisprudence, with regard to Commerce Clause case law, incorporation doctrine, and substantive due process, among other examples.

But your subjective and partisan disapproval of current Constitutional jurisprudence doesn’t warrant efforts by conservatives to seek to eviscerate the judicial branch of government and circumvent Constitutional case law and the rule of law with nonsense such as ‘National referenda’ and local jurisdictions ‘nullifying’ Federal laws and Federal court decisions.

 

[Geaux4it]

it is the witching hour for America. The framers gave citizens the tools to address the unthinkable. It's within scope and indeed our duty to rise in opposition to tyranny and lawlessness coming from the Oval Office.

Myself and many included are seriously considering whether we are at that juncture. And for others to declare that somehow these citizens are 'Un-American', traitors etc have no real understanding of the love and passion for the United States, that generations of these families have.

Our country, in my opinion, was made from the sweat and blood of people who would take issue with the direction our country is headed. And I'm afraid the finish line is in site, and make no mistake, once arrived there will be no celebration or victory laps, but only despair.

And we know who will be on the losing end of the equation.

Freedom!

-Geaux

 

[CorvusRexus]

So if you deem it unconstitutional...it's unconstitutional? Gee, if we only had a court that could make such determinations....

A Court not elected by the People that may be part of the problem? Oh, we have that.
A Court that stands for what it was intended and keeps the Gov't that appoints them for life in line? Nope.

Incorrect.

Judges on the Federal courts are elected indirectly, just like the president – when one votes for a presidential candidate he is also voting for the judges that president will nominate to fill Federal vacancies, and those nominated must be confirmed by the Senate, whose members are elected by the people.

This is the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, guaranteeing a republican form of government, representative democracy – where ‘pure democracy’ poses a threat to our civil liberties.

And as already correctly noted, to ensure our civil liberties are safeguarded, the Constitution and its case law are the supreme law of the land, where one’s civil liberties are not determined by ‘majority rule,’ and neither a ‘National referendum’ nor a city or county government may through the political process decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

It is understood that you and others on the right are unhappy with current Constitutional jurisprudence, with regard to Commerce Clause case law, incorporation doctrine, and substantive due process, among other examples.

But your subjective and partisan disapproval of current Constitutional jurisprudence doesn’t warrant efforts by conservatives to seek to eviscerate the judicial branch of government and circumvent Constitutional case law and the rule of law with nonsense such as ‘National referenda’ and local jurisdictions ‘nullifying’ Federal laws and Federal court decisions.

What do you think of my proposal to fix the Supreme Court? I posted it a little bit ago, so it should be on this page. My proposal in regards to that give the people a direct representative voice on the SCOTUS, and still gives the Feds power to keep the states from completely taking their power.

 

[candycorn]

A Court not elected by the People that may be part of the problem? Oh, we have that.

Yes we do. Do you know why?

In part, to prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority; i.e. to protect the minority. This is why a person's rights should never be put up to popular vote. I have no unusual body piercings. I think neck tattoos are incredibly unattractive. If we were to have a national referendum to either outlaw them or appoint judges who would do so, the thin minority of those who partake will likely have to cover them or get fined.

Would "we" do this? Of course those who sponsor such idiotic notions as electing judges who will make popular decisions lest they get voted out of office by becoming unpopular will say "no". History reveals otherwise.

A Court that stands for what it was intended and keeps the Gov't that appoints them for life in line? Nope.

If you live in the 50 states, you live in the greatest civilization ever fielded...by far. There are no close seconds. Adjusting for climate, inflation, per capita, etc...there are no close seconds. Yet ignorant ***** such as yourself seem to think there is some thing you're being deprived of and are ready to go to war.

Like you buddy Drake (I'm pretty sure he's reading this at the same time you are)...go for it and see how popular your views are loser. Some philosopher onces said that "when you set your course for revenge, first dig two graves." Supposedly one for whomever you're going after and one for yourself. In your case, one for yourself will suffice.

Fine. Confession time about Flake. I did know him. And hated him. His claims of handing over rule after an ill-thought war were most likely lies. All through school I can still remember his incessant claims of having the ability to rule the world someday. He struck me as an arrogant bastard, quite honestly. I also could have sworn he was quite literally insane. And if he is reading this, than that was quite an impressive disappearing act, Drake.

In regards to the rest, I love living in America, and would hate a war if one were to break out. I acknowledge the immense privilege of being an American citizen, but I also ask myself the question, "Does living in the best place there is make it the best place possible?" And the answer to that is no. I am sure even you would agree America still ahs room for improvement. So how is seeking that change that I believe to be better voted on peacefully and thus established wrong?

There is a framework; use it. Deeming this or that as unconstitutional because it disagrees with your interpretation is a time honored tool used by, well, tools who have an inflated opinion of their knowledge on the subject.

Here's an idea. Perhaps instead of all SCOTUS justices being appointed, only four are and the other five are elected by region: Midwest, West, Southeast. Southwest, and East Coast. Also imposing term limits on SCOTUS members. That way power is still retained by the Feds but also restored to the people.

I can get with you on term limits. Eighteen years is the number I hear most often which would allow every President going forward to appoint a minimum of 3 justices.

As for electing judges; it's a stupid idea. What is right isn't always popular and what is popular isn't always right. Elections are, at their core, popularity contests.

What is a more bizarre question that comes to mind is why one would want an election to start with? Do you honestly feel that most of the public would study decisions made by the candidate/justices (I'm assuming you'd like to keep current judges as the primary candidates for vacancies on the high court) and come to the conclusion that they were right or wrong? Based on what? Criminal court judges--the most visible ones to most Americans--would have what exactly as their track record? The number of jury convictions--of which they had no part of?

I doubt you understand much about the judicial process if you're recommending this.

If a law banning things like neck piercings- as you used as an example- were proposed, the Fed side could say "no" and would win unless the regions voted unanimously, which probably wouldn't happen. Would this be agreeable to you?

The outcome would be. Again, that what is being prescribed is ruling favorably in this case is just a coincidence. What shouldn't be put up to popular vote or rule by those elected by popular vote are our rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's an idea. Perhaps instead of all SCOTUS justices being appointed, only four are and the other five are elected by region: Midwest, West, Southeast. Southwest, and East Coast. Also imposing term limits on SCOTUS members. That way power is still retained by the Feds but also restored to the people.

You’re still not understanding.

The people and the Federal government are one in the same, the people created the Federal government, and they created the Federal Constitution to ensure the rule of law would always be paramount.

The notion of appointing Supreme Court justices by region is nonsense, and clearly a partisan ploy by you and others on the right hostile to current Constitution jurisprudence you incorrectly perceive as ‘liberal.’

The notion of ‘term limits’ for Supreme Court justices is also nonsense, and also a partisan ploy by you and others on the right seeking to populate the High Court with justices who will rule as partisan rightwing ideologues, not rule in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, such proposals are anathema to the rule of law and our Constitutional Republic.

 

[Geaux4it]

IMO- I just want them to cut to the chase. The slow bleed of our liberties I agree is the strategic approach with the best chance of success. And it's working. Average day to day Americans don't pay attention to the wound. Most are consumed by a missing plane than are aware of what is happening in Ukraine etc.

I hope I'm still alive to see what I feel is surely coming

As in the past, I hope I'm wrong

-Geaux

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's an idea. Perhaps instead of all SCOTUS justices being appointed, only four are and the other five are elected by region: Midwest, West, Southeast. Southwest, and East Coast. Also imposing term limits on SCOTUS members. That way power is still retained by the Feds but also restored to the people.

You’re still not understanding.

The people and the Federal government are one in the same, the people created the Federal government, and they created the Federal Constitution to ensure the rule of law would always be paramount.

The notion of appointing Supreme Court justices by region is nonsense, and clearly a partisan ploy by you and others on the right hostile to current Constitution jurisprudence you incorrectly perceive as ‘liberal.’

The notion of ‘term limits’ for Supreme Court justices is also nonsense, and also a partisan ploy by you and others on the right seeking to populate the High Court with justices who will rule as partisan rightwing ideologues, not rule in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, such proposals are anathema to the rule of law and our Constitutional Republic.

All but the last part... it's authoritarians of both parties that are anathema to the rule of law and our Constitutional Republic. It's not a left / right thing it's an Authoritarian / Libertarian thing. Left wing judges rule against liberty just as often as right wing judges.

 

[natstew]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "**** off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go **** OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

Local authorities have no arrest power over federal authorities. They can arrest Federal employees of any bureau or section but they can not legally arrest Law enforcement or Government officials exercising what is a Federal law or statute. In other words Federal law trumps State and local law.

The recourse would be to take it to court and have a Federal Court agree the Local or State law was legal and that the federal law was not.

Problem is; By the time it worked it's way through our Court system to the Supremes it would be too late to make a difference to the people who's rights have been violated.
Our Supreme Court is really a farce. The Supremes spend way too much ime on the golf course and not nearly enough on the 'Bench'.

 

[RKMBrown]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "**** off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go **** OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

Local authorities have no arrest power over federal authorities. They can arrest Federal employees of any bureau or section but they can not legally arrest Law enforcement or Government officials exercising what is a Federal law or statute. In other words Federal law trumps State and local law.

The recourse would be to take it to court and have a Federal Court agree the Local or State law was legal and that the federal law was not.

Problem is; By the time it worked it's way through our Court system to the Supremes it would be too late to make a difference to the people who's rights have been violated.
Our Supreme Court is really a farce. The Supremes spend way too much ime on the golf course and not nearly enough on the 'Bench'.

Nonsense. They do a ton of work for their measly pay.