Living Document or Not?

[jillian]

Good try. But no, it's not.

Feel free to insert another Alinskyite tactic here though. You can A) change the subject and attack or B) use ridicule.

actually, it is... it's a virtually non-existent concept in our caselaw... as it should be.

and the people who pretend to follow it are the ones who are most activist in the sense that they invalidate more laws than their presumably more flexible colleagues.

now, what do you consider 'activist'...someone who upholds a law or someone who strikes one down for political purpose?

nice hail mary pass to the allinsky reference, though.

the constitution isn't some fundie's bible... and you know that.

 

[jillian]

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

No. A lib like you who apparently doesn't quite know the exact type of legal system we live under, like you.

You, for example, seem to believe (erroneously) that the United States has a "common law" legal system; but if you actually did know exactly what kind of legal system we live under, you wouldn't make such a rookie mistake.

Our legal system is only a common law system in part; not in whole.

He's finding that out as he struggles to present a prima facie case of RICO. Maybe he's madly researching on FindLaw now......

actually, he's talking to me on that one.

kind of funny that...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. A lib like you who apparently doesn't quite know the exact type of legal system we live under, like you.

You, for example, seem to believe (erroneously) that the United States has a "common law" legal system; but if you actually did know exactly what kind of legal system we live under, you wouldn't make such a rookie mistake.

Our legal system is only a common law system in part; not in whole.

He's finding that out as he struggles to present a prima facie case of RICO. Maybe he's madly researching on FindLaw now......

Actually no struggle is necessary. RICO requires a finding of a racketeering activity (obstruction of justice is broad and fits the example just fine).
I'm not about to write a long paragraph in making my point, given those who read posts on this message board hold opinions not generally open to rational and critical thought.

......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good try. But no, it's not.

Feel free to insert another Alinskyite tactic here though. You can A) change the subject and attack or B) use ridicule.

actually, it is... it's a virtually non-existent concept in our caselaw... as it should be.

and the people who pretend to follow it are the ones who are most activist in the sense that they invalidate more laws than their presumably more flexible colleagues.

now, what do you consider 'activist'...someone who upholds a law or someone who strikes one down for political purpose?

nice hail mary pass to the allinsky reference, though.

the constitution isn't some fundie's bible... and you know that.

Shouldn't you try to keep the same rights you have for your children so they can pass the same rights down to future generations?
So why would you want the Constitution to change why would you even think it is acceptable?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Good try. But no, it's not.

Feel free to insert another Alinskyite tactic here though. You can A) change the subject and attack or B) use ridicule.

actually, it is... it's a virtually non-existent concept in our caselaw... as it should be.

and the people who pretend to follow it are the ones who are most activist in the sense that they invalidate more laws than their presumably more flexible colleagues.

now, what do you consider 'activist'...someone who upholds a law or someone who strikes one down for political purpose?

nice hail mary pass to the allinsky reference, though.

That's what the left says to deflect attention from their activism. I'll go case for case with you. You can present your activism in recent cases from Scalia et al and I'll go back to the politically corrupt Stone and Warren courts and match double the judicial activism.

In any case, you have no quote from a judge applying the plain meaning like there is from Thurgood Marshall "You do what's right and hope the law catches up."

What school of Constitutional interpretation is that from?

I'll ask for some sort of evidence from both of you as to exactly how many jurists apply the plain meaning and how many just fly by the seat of their pants and make shit up.

Additionally, in response to the activism of plain meaning, that would mean that a judge interpreting a contract is engaging in judicial activism too. I think that's an unsupportable charge.

Just shining the light on Alinsky is all. When it gets shown for what it is it loses it's power.

 

[ConHog]

Good try. But no, it's not.

Feel free to insert another Alinskyite tactic here though. You can A) change the subject and attack or B) use ridicule.

actually, it is... it's a virtually non-existent concept in our caselaw... as it should be.

and the people who pretend to follow it are the ones who are most activist in the sense that they invalidate more laws than their presumably more flexible colleagues.

now, what do you consider 'activist'...someone who upholds a law or someone who strikes one down for political purpose?

nice hail mary pass to the allinsky reference, though.

the constitution isn't some fundie's bible... and you know that.

Shouldn't you try to keep the same rights you have for your children so they can pass the same rights down to future generations?
So why would you want the Constitution to change why would you even think it is acceptable?

Because it MUST change , else blacks would still be slaves, Jillian would be pregnant and barefoot - and very silent, in my kitchen, and a myriad of other social problems would never have been addressed.

Now , obviously the system can be misused, but the idea of either altering the COTUS through Amendments or interpreting it via judicial rulings is a good thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The judicial activism has always been a conservative and liberal field, not just one or the other.

Tech, you have to objective about this if you don't want to get dogged across the Board for being a hack.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

actually, it is... it's a virtually non-existent concept in our caselaw... as it should be.

and the people who pretend to follow it are the ones who are most activist in the sense that they invalidate more laws than their presumably more flexible colleagues.

now, what do you consider 'activist'...someone who upholds a law or someone who strikes one down for political purpose?

nice hail mary pass to the allinsky reference, though.

the constitution isn't some fundie's bible... and you know that.

Shouldn't you try to keep the same rights you have for your children so they can pass the same rights down to future generations?
So why would you want the Constitution to change why would you even think it is acceptable?

Because it MUST change , else blacks would still be slaves, Jillian would be pregnant and barefoot - and very silent, in my kitchen, and a myriad of other social problems would never have been addressed.

Now , obviously the system can be misused, but the idea of either altering the COTUS through Amendments or interpreting it via judicial rulings is a good thing.

Changing the Constitution through judicial rulings never was the intent of a constitutional amendment. Nor is it a good thing. nine opinions is an easy way to strike down the 13th amendment. 9 against three hundred million plus.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its NOT changing the constitution, its interpreting it for its bearing on new laws.

You just claim its changing the constitution.

 

[Yurt]

You are projecting your failure here on the Board and threads generally. When you support your assertions, Yurt the Squirt, I will be glad to counter. But when you make a claim, silly guy, you have to support it. You don't. End of discussion. Move along.

odd...you're the one that set ground rules after i correctly noted you fail to support you assertions...those ground rules consisted of providing FACTS to support one's claim....i'm all game...

now, why don't you be honest and abide by your own ground rules....provide facts i'm a racist...if you don't, its clear that this third opportunity provided to you to do so is clear and convincing evidence you do not support your arguments or assertions as i earlier claimed.

quite simple really. ball is in your court. you're proving me case with every post you make by not proving your assertion at all. and, you're being intellectually dishonest.

thats what i thought, nothing from jake...

game over....another embarrassing loss for jakey

 

[Yurt]

Its NOT changing the constitution, its interpreting it for its bearing on new laws.

You just claim its changing the constitution.

however....in effect, it does alter the constitution, in that, how the law applies across our great land....if scotus said the second only applies to militias that are regulated, don't you think the effect would drastically change how the 2nd amendment is carried out? from time beginning, gun rights have been personal....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are projecting your failure here on the Board and threads generally. When you support your assertions, Yurt the Squirt, I will be glad to counter. But when you make a claim, silly guy, you have to support it. You don't. End of discussion. Move along.

odd...you're the one that set ground rules after i correctly noted you fail to support you assertions...those ground rules consisted of providing FACTS to support one's claim....i'm all game...

now, why don't you be honest and abide by your own ground rules....provide facts i'm a racist...if you don't, its clear that this third opportunity provided to you to do so is clear and convincing evidence you do not support your arguments or assertions as i earlier claimed.

quite simple really. ball is in your court. you're proving me case with every post you make by not proving your assertion at all. and, you're being intellectually dishonest.

thats what i thought, nothing from jake...

game over....another embarrassing loss for jakey

Wait for it, because he has been busy with me a few others. He may have forgoitten your reply.

 

[Yurt]

odd...you're the one that set ground rules after i correctly noted you fail to support you assertions...those ground rules consisted of providing FACTS to support one's claim....i'm all game...

now, why don't you be honest and abide by your own ground rules....provide facts i'm a racist...if you don't, its clear that this third opportunity provided to you to do so is clear and convincing evidence you do not support your arguments or assertions as i earlier claimed.

quite simple really. ball is in your court. you're proving me case with every post you make by not proving your assertion at all. and, you're being intellectually dishonest.

thats what i thought, nothing from jake...

game over....another embarrassing loss for jakey

Wait for it, because he has been busy with me a few others. He may have forgoitten your reply.

possibly, but he has had 2 other chances and yet can't support his allegation that i am a racist with any facts....IOW....he is not willing to abide by his own debate rules...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are projecting your failure here on the Board and threads generally. When you support your assertions, Yurt the Squirt, I will be glad to counter. But when you make a claim, silly guy, you have to support it. You don't. End of discussion. Move along.

odd...you're the one that set ground rules after i correctly noted you fail to support you assertions...those ground rules consisted of providing FACTS to support one's claim....i'm all game...

now, why don't you be honest and abide by your own ground rules....provide facts i'm a racist...if you don't, its clear that this third opportunity provided to you to do so is clear and convincing evidence you do not support your arguments or assertions as i earlier claimed.

quite simple really. ball is in your court. you're proving me case with every post you make by not proving your assertion at all. and, you're being intellectually dishonest.

thats what i thought, nothing from jake...

game over....another embarrassing loss for jakey

Hi, squirt. Either you support your claims or you will be dogged across the Board.

No more passes for you, son.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

odd...you're the one that set ground rules after i correctly noted you fail to support you assertions...those ground rules consisted of providing FACTS to support one's claim....i'm all game...

now, why don't you be honest and abide by your own ground rules....provide facts i'm a racist...if you don't, its clear that this third opportunity provided to you to do so is clear and convincing evidence you do not support your arguments or assertions as i earlier claimed.

quite simple really. ball is in your court. you're proving me case with every post you make by not proving your assertion at all. and, you're being intellectually dishonest.

thats what i thought, nothing from jake...

game over....another embarrassing loss for jakey

Hi, squirt. Either you support your claims or you will be dogged across the Board.

No more passes for you, son.

I told you Yurt. Sorry jakeass but you cannot use my words even if you changed them a little

 

[JakeStarkey]

thats what i thought, nothing from jake...

game over....another embarrassing loss for jakey

Wait for it, because he has been busy with me a few others. He may have forgoitten your reply.

possibly, but he has had 2 other chances and yet can't support his allegation that i am a racist with any facts....IOW....he is not willing to abide by his own debate rules...

When you call others racist without any proof of it, Squirt, is a racist statement. Thanks for pulling the trigger on yourself. You are so easy.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its NOT changing the constitution, its interpreting it for its bearing on new laws.

You just claim its changing the constitution.

however....in effect, it does alter the constitution, in that, how the law applies across our great land....if scotus said the second only applies to militias that are regulated, don't you think the effect would drastically change how the 2nd amendment is carried out? from time beginning, gun rights have been personal....

It would be the interpitation that the founders gave us the power to effect.

This is how this government is.

If you dont like it how the government was set up there are other countries for you to move to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its NOT changing the constitution, its interpreting it for its bearing on new laws.

You just claim its changing the constitution.

however....in effect, it does alter the constitution, in that, how the law applies across our great land....if scotus said the second only applies to militias that are regulated, don't you think the effect would drastically change how the 2nd amendment is carried out? from time beginning, gun rights have been personal....

Squirt, that is what judicial review does: it interprets the meaning of the Constitution. Because you don't agree with it does not make it wrong. In fact, it certainly means you should check your own reasoning, because it is generally very wobbly.

 

[Yurt]

thats what i thought, nothing from jake...

game over....another embarrassing loss for jakey

Hi, squirt. Either you support your claims or you will be dogged across the Board.

No more passes for you, son.

I told you Yurt.

what? that he wouldn't back up his claim?....yeah...i figured that was coming

i always support my claims...jake knows he lied and can't support his allegation, so he dishonestly runs from it....

3rd time and he of course failed to provide any facts to substantiate his claim that i am racist....jake lied and lost the debate. its over and done for me.....

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the date of its inception

1789