Living Document or Not?

[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?

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.

So now you are going to resort to lying huh?

Where did I say there is only two bodies?

 

[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.

So now you are going to resort to lying huh?

Where did I say there is only two bodies?

Holy shit look at your reply. Did you forget that the president also has a say?

 

[Bern80]

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?

The problem is that isn't 'interpreting' anything. It's making an exception to the constitution or just plain ignoring it. How it is 'interpreting' the constitution I have no idea. I don't know how you can interpret what is written to mean the 'right to bare arms shall not be infringed', except in cases x, y and z.

 

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

kind of funny that...

Sorry about that, I thought he was talking to WC. Should have read more carefully.

By the way, the laws of Virginia are described as the English common law as it existed in 1765 with statutory modifications. We still have an actual division between pleadings at law and at equity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you are zealous but nonobjective, Tech, it is inevitable that you will be a poor advocate for your point of view. How long you have been here means absolutely nothing as to the facts and proper interpretations. For example, your misinterpretation of judicial review as somehow "changing" the Constitution is outright silly and indefensible. But go ahead and try.

 

[ConHog]

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?

The problem is that isn't 'interpreting ' anything. It's making an exception to the constitution or just plain ignoring it. How it is 'interpreting' the constitution I have no idea. I don't know how you can interpret what is written to mean the 'right to bare arms shall not be infringed', except in cases x, y and z.

No, they didn't interpret the COTUS, and they are not meant to. that is where people get confused. SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality. Sorry if I worded that wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

That means nothing, bigreb. You will have to do better. You made an assertion, but you did not show why it made any sense or is relevant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

The problem is that isn't 'interpreting ' anything. It's making an exception to the constitution or just plain ignoring it. How it is 'interpreting' the constitution I have no idea. I don't know how you can interpret what is written to mean the 'right to bare arms shall not be infringed', except in cases x, y and z.

No, they didn't interpret the COTUS, and they are not meant to. that is where people get confused. SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality. Sorry if I worded that wrong.

ConHog that is what I have been saying for 8 pages now.
"SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality"

 

[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.

That means nothing, bigreb. You will have to do better. You made an assertion, but you did not show why it made any sense or is relevant.

I realize I am years a head of you junior but anything I post is way above your comprehension skill level.

 

[Tech_Esq]

If you are zealous but nonobjective, Tech, it is inevitable that you will be a poor advocate for your point of view. How long you have been here means absolutely nothing as to the facts and proper interpretations.

Disagreement with your premise does not mean I lack objectivity.

My length of tenure and pos reps from folks like Editec, Barb, Ravi, Jillian, Care4all and more. mean that I have participated in many discussions of substance with all of them and neither of us engaged in hackery. We disagreed, but were not disagreeable.

This is something I've yet to observe in your engagements either with me or with others on this board that I know to have had very good discussions with people of the other political view. It is actually you that I observed being dogged across the board.

 

[ConHog]

The problem is that isn't 'interpreting ' anything. It's making an exception to the constitution or just plain ignoring it. How it is 'interpreting' the constitution I have no idea. I don't know how you can interpret what is written to mean the 'right to bare arms shall not be infringed', except in cases x, y and z.

No, they didn't interpret the COTUS, and they are not meant to. that is where people get confused. SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality. Sorry if I worded that wrong.

ConHog that is what I have been saying for 8 pages now.
"SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality"

Yes, and by definition occasionally a law gets ruled as being constitutional which does fundamentally change our understanding of the COTUS, and that is exactly how the FF designed.

Oh and may I say HAHA to TM for stating that there are two branches of government.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

So now you are going to resort to lying huh?

Where did I say there is only two bodies?

Holy shit look at your reply. Did you forget that the president also has a say?

You are just going to stick to the lie huh?

I did not say there wer only two bodies.

This shows your argument has fallen ass apart and you are so desperate you are now lying.

 

[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?

Heres the post and what you claimed was never said.

 

[Yurt]

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

oooops....did jake "miss" this one....

 

[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?

Heres the post and what you claimed was never said.

And there are three bodys or branches in the government did you forget about the President?
OH and I never said that the post you made did not exist

 

[ConHog]

So now you are going to resort to lying huh?

Where did I say there is only two bodies?

Holy shit look at your reply. Did you forget that the president also has a say?

You are just going to stick to the lie huh?

I did not say there wer only two bodies.

This shows your argument has fallen ass apart and you are so desperate you are now lying.

TM, you DID say two branches, much as you claimed the other day that federal judges are elected. Just admit that you have not yet had 9th grade civics and go on.

 

[Misty]

Liability, you can answer the questions if you have something to add to this. Otherwise, you are just mumbling and no one is listening.

Are you referring to macdonald vs Chicago?

On the back of district of Columbia vs. Heller, DC tried to change the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment by claiming it only applied to miltia or the military not individual citizens.

The conservatives on the SCOTUS did incorporate to keep individuals rights to have guns. They actually fought against a liberal opinion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, they didn't interpret the COTUS, and they are not meant to. that is where people get confused. SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality. Sorry if I worded that wrong.

ConHog that is what I have been saying for 8 pages now.
"SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality"

Yes, and by definition occasionally a law gets ruled as being constitutional which does fundamentally change our understanding of the COTUS, and that is exactly how the FF designed.

Oh and may I say HAHA to TM for stating that there are two branches of government.

But that ruleing is not nor was it meant to change the Constitution. There are only two way that the Constitution can be change
Slavery was not ruled unconstitutional through the courts but it was changed through congress.

 

[Liability]

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?

Heres the post and what you claimed was never said.

Hey, truthdoesn'tmattertoyouatall:

Tell us again all about the election of judges and their stirring campaigns for re-election. I especially like y our novel theory about how they make judicial decisions designed to win them support at the polls!

I mean, clearly, as one of the TWO BODIES (branches) crafted by the Constitution, there MUST be some interesting stories about that topic!

 

[Yurt]

TM didn't say there were only two branches, she was referring to the two branches mentioned, congress and scotus