Living Document or Not?

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt almost never supports his claims.

I will be pointing out every example from now on. I invite all other spirited Americans of good will to do the same.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

OK, this is tiresome now.

Actually it requires that each alleged member of the conspiracy knowingly conspires to violate 18 USC 1962c. It is also a requirement that there be an organization that is involved in the conspiracy and that it will effect interstate commerce.

There's more, but that's enough. Your tangled fact pattern doesn't meet the standard. I'm sure if we go back an forth enough you'll develop one. But I'm done now. I made my point.

 

[Yurt]

lol...says the liar who cannot support his claim with any facts that i am a racist

no doubt jake is a troll...legion

 

[Truthmatters]

John Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Adams was a founder wasnt he

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Note the date of its inception

the Supreme Court was never meant to be a tool that would alter or change the Constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

lol...says the liar who cannot support his claim with any facts that i am a racist

no doubt jake is a troll...legion

Remember, Squirt, that you will be checked from now for support of any claim you make.

Your day of following Rush's Rules for Fools is over.

 

[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....

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.

you're such a funny hypocrite....when some cons were saying that to those who opposed the war you were fuming mad...now....you say it

your hypocrisy knows no bounds...i will not leave, i will stay in and work within the system to make it a better country

 

[ConHog]

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.

judicial review sometimes DOES change the COTUS, and that IS a good thing. In the example I gave, prior to 1968 it was perfectly legal for a convicted felon to own a firearm after serving his sentence, even though this apparently violates their 2nd Amendment rights, and this was upheld in part in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the ruling read in part

The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Now, unless you are telling me that you believe the FF never intended for there to be ANY limits on gun ownership, you must admit that this interpretation was a good thing.

Further, if the FF had not intended for their to be a judiciary responsible for interpreting the COTUS why then did they create a provision for one to exist in the first place?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yurt almost never supports his claims.

I will be pointing out every example from now on. I invite all other spirited americans of good will to do the same.

lol

 

[ConHog]

Yurt almost never supports his claims.

I will be pointing out every example from now on. I invite all other spirited Americans of good will to do the same.

I will join you if you will start doing so against Ravi as well. Otherwise go **** yourself.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

Note the date of its inception

the Supreme Court was never meant to be a tool that would alter or change the Constitution

Interpitation is what they do.

You pretend its changing it.

You do this because you dont like the interpitations.

You are against the government our founders designed.

**** you very much and move.

 

[Yurt]

lol...says the liar who cannot support his claim with any facts that i am a racist

no doubt jake is a troll...legion

Remember, Squirt, that you will be checked from now for support of any claim you make.

Your day of following Rush's Rules for Fools is over.

ooooh...i'm so scared fakey who never supports his allegations, and who embarrassingly couldn't even abide by his own debate rules and provide facts that i am racist



keep on trollin'

 

[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....

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.

another fakey claim....i never said i don't agree with judicial review, in fact i have posts on this board supporting judicial review...any more lies you care to cook up today?

another embarrassing debate with jake

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Note the date of its inception

the Supreme Court was never meant to be a tool that would alter or change the Constitution

Interpitation is what they do.

You pretend its changing it.

You do this because you dont like the interpitations.

You are against the government our founders designed.

**** you very much and move.

Interpret new laws to make sure they are Constitutional but no change. Since everybody likes to bring up the subject of slavery, I will ask you this was the supreme court the one that ruled slavery unconstitutional, or was it Congress? The change did not come through the courts but through cngress.

 

[Truthmatters]

You do realise the two bodies were designed by the founders to do two different things right?

Why do you hate the way the founders designed the SCOTUS?

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

What I must do is be a zealous advocate for my point of view.

I've been here longer than you Jakey, I think I have a firm handle on it. But thanks for your concern.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do realise the two bodies were designed by the founders to do two different things right?

Why do you hate the way the founders designed the SCOTUS?

Wrong on all accounts short cake their are THREE bodies in the govenment and once again
Since everybody likes to bring up the subject of slavery, I will ask you this. Was the supreme court the one that ruled slavery unconstitutional, or was it Congress? The change did not come through the courts but through cngress.

 

[Truthmatters]

John Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why do you hate this man?

 

[Yurt]

John Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why do you hate this man?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

John Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why do you hate this man?

Answer my question
Since everybody likes to bring up the subject of slavery, I will ask you this was the supreme court the one that ruled slavery unconstitutional, or was it Congress? The change did not come through the courts but through cngress.