Living Document or Not?

[Wry Catcher]

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.

But is it a good thing when a clerk estabishes precedent [Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific RR] and subsequent 'activist' court expands on it, as was done in Citizens United?
Or do you admit this is an example of abuse?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

True but the founders also created another branc h of the government that also has a job to do in accordence with the other two branches. Which makes three.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

And I was talking only of the two branches.

I never stated there were only two branches.

Now go to that thread and see where I admitted my mistake.

This guy is LYING about what I said and true to your partisan idiotry you lap up the lie.


More proof you people cannot defend your failed ideas and avoid the REAL discussion and resort to lies.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

True but the founders also created another branc h of the government that also has a job to do in accordence with the other two branches. Which makes three.

Then why instead of continuing the debate you LIED about what I said?

 

[ConHog]

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.

Slavery was changed by CON Amendment b/c it had to be, because the 14th essentially nullified entire segments of the COTUS , including Article 1 Section 9. If Congress had simply passed a law saying "slavery is illegal" it would have been unconstitutional, in fact Abe Lincoln's entire Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a 19th century power grab, he didn't have the authority to free shit.

We seen another example of this with Prohibition. An Amendment was needed to over ride the existing Amendment.

 

[Liability]

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

That would be a reasonable interpretation, since one would have to be totally ignorant to claim that the Constitution set up only two branches of government. That kind of ignorance could only emanate from a person who thinks federal judges get elected and therefore craft their judicial decisions to curry favor with the electorate.

So, you can see how Truthdoesn'tmattertoheratall doesn't earn the benefit of the doubt. But, in this case, since your read is a fair and rational one, she maybe earns a pass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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....

Simple unsubstantiated claims by Squirt: make charges of which you are guilty (Rush's Rules for Fools).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

True but the founders also created another branc h of the government that also has a job to do in accordence with the other two branches. Which makes three.

Then why instead of continuing the debate you LIED about what I said?

This is what I said
"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."

I was not the one that is continuing to drag this own you are. There are Three branches short cake in the government that are to work together with the Constitution as their guide. I will take it that you forgot about the President and move on.

 

[Oddball]

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?

Striking down bad law isn't activist, your projected surmise of political motivations nonwithstanding. In fact, if juries were apprised of their right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case -a completely lawful action usurper oligarchs such as yourself stand stridently against- a lot less of the garbage that the superior courts deal with wouldn't even get tht far.

However, ignoring the law, as in Kelo, and making it up out of whole cloth, as in Roe, are activist in ways those who set up the courts never intended them to act.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

However, the principle of incorporation, the extension of national power at the expense of state power, is liberalism, not conservatism.

That's the nub of the decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

True but the founders also created another branc h of the government that also has a job to do in accordence with the other two branches. Which makes three.

This is where your stupidity shows, bigreb. Three was not the point; TM was referring to the two that made up the point.

Stop drinking and start reading. Think not drink while you read.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because bigreb lies, TM. That is what he does.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because bigreb lies, TM. That is what he does.

Then there's jakeass who's claim to fame is surrounded by lies on top of lies and lies that others lies to cover up his lies. and then we are back to the same spot jakeass lies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

True but the founders also created another branc h of the government that also has a job to do in accordence with the other two branches. Which makes three.

This is where your stupidity shows, bigreb. Three was not the point; TM was referring to the two that made up the point.

Stop drinking and start reading. Think not drink while you read.

short cake said there were two branches but there are three that are to work together with the Cnstitution as their guide now you can continue to cover for her but words out she said two.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rush's Rule for Fools #4: Accuse others of what you do repeatedly (a typical Far Right Reactionary ~ trying to pretend to be a conservative ~ tactic). And bigreb can't even do this well.

 

[Yurt]

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....

Simple unsubstantiated claims by Squirt: make charges of which you are guilty (Rush's Rules for Fools).

its quite humorous to see your pompous ass run around the board claiming debate moral highground. you claim to support your assertions, you claim others don't, yet offer no proof or any evidence, you claim i am a racist, yet offer zero evidence, you claim i am against judicial review, yet offer no evidence....and when called on it you regurgitate this retarded saying.

you're a joke, no wonder wonder no one takes you serious. i thought that maybe once you laid down your debate rules, we would actually see jake debate, yet.....all we see is exactly what i said at the beginning of the thread, you make claims and never back them up.

thats 3 for yurt, 0 for joke

 

[Truthmatters]

Big red you LIED about what I said and everyone here knows it.


You dont get to claim the scotus is bad because you dont like what they deside.

You either like the system our founders gave us or you dont.


Now your political view has been trashed by the Scotus which the founders designed.

Quit pretending the country has to accept YOUR position on what government does instead of the SCOTUS's.

You are being anti constitutional and US hating when you trash talk our system.

 

[Yurt]

Rush's Rule for Fools #4: Accuse others of what you do repeatedly (a typical Far Right Reactionary ~ trying to pretend to be a conservative ~ tactic). And bigreb can't even do this well.

i see, so when you said i almost never back up my assertions, you were really talking about yourself....when you said i am a racist, you were talking about yourself....when you said i don't support judicial review, you were talking about yourself....

good lord, you're so stupid the very boiler plate talking points you think make you right actually make you wrong

 

[ConHog]

Big red you LIED about what I said and everyone here knows it.


You dont get to claim the scotus is bad because you dont like what they deside.

You either like the system our founders gave us or you dont.


Now your political view has been trashed by the Scotus which the founders designed.

Quit pretending the country has to accept YOUR position on what government does instead of the SCOTUS's.

You are being anti constitutional and US hating when you trash talk our system.

Question there TM - How does a federal appellate court judge get their job?

 

[Truthmatters]

Big red you LIED about what I said and everyone here knows it.


You dont get to claim the scotus is bad because you dont like what they deside.

You either like the system our founders gave us or you dont.


Now your political view has been trashed by the Scotus which the founders designed.

Quit pretending the country has to accept YOUR position on what government does instead of the SCOTUS's.

You are being anti constitutional and US hating when you trash talk our system.

Question there TM - How does a federal appellate court judge get their job?

Go to the thread you are talking about and see my reply.