Living Document or Not?

[Liability]

Dude why do you keep pushing this like it has bearing on the issue.

Yes congress ccan amend the constitution with a high majority vote.

tha has no bearing on the job the scotus is charged with.

No it's not that congress can do it, you are making it sound as if it can be done other ways.. Through Congress is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

And by the People through the States.

 

[Truthmatters]

Dude why do you keep pushing this like it has bearing on the issue.

Yes congress ccan amend the constitution with a high majority vote.

tha has no bearing on the job the scotus is charged with.

No it's not that congress can do it, you are making it sound as if it can be done other ways.. Through Congress is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you are stating gerneralities and giving no real cases to examine.

Now do you accept the scotus has the right to decide what laws comport with the constitution?

You still haven't address this.

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.

what exactly is the point you're trying to make with this?

the last part. At the time I asked this question it was relevant but truth dodged it until now.
But anyway the courts have never amended or repealed any parts of the Constitutions which is what truth is trying to imply or at least that is the way I am understanding it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude why do you keep pushing this like it has bearing on the issue.

Yes congress ccan amend the constitution with a high majority vote.

tha has no bearing on the job the scotus is charged with.

No it's not that congress can do it, you are making it sound as if it can be done other ways.. Through Congress is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

No bullshit about it I said through congress is the only way it can happen but never through the courts.

To Propose Amendments


•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments

To Ratify Amendments


•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or


•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
Amending the US Constitution – Methods For Amending the US Constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a red herring, bigreb. Look it up if you don't understand. SCOTUS does not matter in this case, because the 13th Amendment was a congressional matter. If SCOTUS had ruled on the matter, it would have ruled that congress had acted within the Constitution.

Let me explain something to you jakeass you do not need to define anything to me. So tell me has the tenth amendmnt been repealed?

Your point has been answered and your argument dismissed. It does not pertain. Neither does your interpretation of the 10th Amendment. Only SCOTUS can define that. Guess what?

 

[Liability]

Dude why do you keep pushing this like it has bearing on the issue.

Yes congress ccan amend the constitution with a high majority vote.

tha has no bearing on the job the scotus is charged with.

No it's not that congress can do it, you are making it sound as if it can be done other ways.. Through Congress is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

Idiots like the poorly educated and very misguided nitwit Truthsuckstoher are adamant in their declaration that "The scotus is the FINAL arbitor [sic] of wether [sic] law comports with the constitution." It never seems to dawn on these shitheads that the system of checks and balances is NOT neutered just because the Supreme Court renders a determination.

It is unlikely that Truthsuckstoher even grasps the import of that observation. Typical brain dead programmed liberal dummy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it's not that congress can do it, you are making it sound as if it can be done other ways.. Through Congress is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

No bullshit about it I said through congress is the only way it can't happen through the courts.

To Propose Amendments


•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments

To Ratify Amendments


•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or


•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
Amending the US Constitution – Methods For Amending the US Constitution

And that has nothing to to with SCOTUS as the final reviewer of constitutionality. If the states for instance had deprived women or other minorities from voting on a proposed amendment in referendum or for legislators in assembly, SCOTUS would rule on the unconstitutionality of that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

No bullshit about it I said through congress is the only way it can happen but never through the courts.

To Propose Amendments


•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments

To Ratify Amendments


•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or


•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
Amending the US Constitution – Methods For Amending the US Constitution

And that has nothing to to with SCOTUS as the final reviewer of constitutionality. If the states for instance had deprived women or other minorities from voting on a proposed amendment in referendum or for legislators in assembly, SCOTUS would rule on the unconstitutionality of that.

picking and choosing read it again

 

[Yurt]

You still haven't address this.

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.

what exactly is the point you're trying to make with this?

the last part. At the time I asked this question it was relevant but truth dodged it until now.
But anyway the courts have never amended or repealed any parts of the Constitutions which is what truth is trying to imply or at least that is the way I am understanding it.

i don't get that she is trying to do that.....when she said the two branches are responsible for different functions (or something like that)...i believe she meant, congress amends and the court can decide such a law is unconstitutional....

her hypocrisy runs deep though, she will accept a scotus ruling she agrees with, but will not accept united v. citizens...

 

[Yurt]

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

No bullshit about it I said through congress is the only way it can't happen through the courts.

To Propose Amendments


•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments

To Ratify Amendments


•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or


•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
Amending the US Constitution – Methods For Amending the US Constitution

And that has nothing to to with SCOTUS as the final reviewer of constitutionality. If the states for instance had deprived women or other minorities from voting on a proposed amendment in referendum or for legislators in assembly, SCOTUS would rule on the unconstitutionality of that.

technically....they rule on the constitutionality of something and find whether it is or is not constitutional

you suck jake

 

[Yurt]

Dude why do you keep pushing this like it has bearing on the issue.

Yes congress ccan amend the constitution with a high majority vote.

tha has no bearing on the job the scotus is charged with.

No it's not that congress can do it, you are making it sound as if it can be done other ways.. Through Congress is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

don't you run around claiming bush stole the election in 2000....i'm nearly positive you do or at a minimum have

that does not comport with your view above

 

[Yurt]

This is a red herring, bigreb. Look it up if you don't understand. SCOTUS does not matter in this case, because the 13th Amendment was a congressional matter. If SCOTUS had ruled on the matter, it would have ruled that congress had acted within the Constitution.

Let me explain something to you jakeass you do not need to define anything to me. So tell me has the tenth amendmnt been repealed?

jake has proved he can't debate, can't abide by his own debate rules, he has proven he is a liar....

watch though...as soon as he thinks he has you in a gotcha moment where you can't back something up, he will hound you and cry foul if you don't back it up to his liking....notwithstanding he will not do so himself....

he is a two bit hack

saved

 

[Truthmatters]

No it's not that congress can do it, you are making it sound as if it can be done other ways.. Through Congress is the only way the Constitution can be amended.

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

don't you run around claiming bush stole the election in 2000....i'm nearly positive you do or at a minimum have

that does not comport with your view above

The floridas felons list has nothing to do with Gore v Bush

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let me explain something to you jakeass you do not need to define anything to me. So tell me has the tenth amendmnt been repealed?

jake has proved he can't debate, can't abide by his own debate rules, he has proven he is a liar....

watch though...as soon as he thinks he has you in a gotcha moment where you can't back something up, he will hound you and cry foul if you don't back it up to his liking....notwithstanding he will not do so himself....

he is a two bit hack

saved

Nicely put.

 

[Truthmatters]

You still haven't address this.

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.

what exactly is the point you're trying to make with this?

the last part. At the time I asked this question it was relevant but truth dodged it until now.
But anyway the courts have never amended or repealed any parts of the Constitutions which is what truth is trying to imply or at least that is the way I am understanding it.

It was never relevant to the power of the scotus.

I NEVER implied the they could change the constitution , you just pulled that out of your ass.

 

[Yurt]

Bullshit, the states can hold a constitutional congress if 2/3rds agree.


The scotus is the FINAL arbitor of wether law comports with the constitution.

Every time they do that they define the perameters of teh constitution.

That is how the founders allowed it to develop.

ITS as much a part of this country as anything else.


you think you can pick and choose which things they decide , you cant.

I had to accpet Gove v Bush . the right leaning scotus took it and decided it and felt so SHITTY about thei decision that they put a caveot in it that said it COULD NOT be used as precendence in anoy other case.

even they knew it was bullshit and I abided by it.

don't you run around claiming bush stole the election in 2000....i'm nearly positive you do or at a minimum have

that does not comport with your view above

The floridas felons list has nothing to do with Gore v Bush

gore v bush gave bush the presidency...hello

 

[JakeStarkey]

No bullshit about it I said through congress is the only way it can happen but never through the courts.

To Propose Amendments


•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments

To Ratify Amendments


•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or


•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
Amending the US Constitution – Methods For Amending the US Constitution

And that has nothing to to with SCOTUS as the final reviewer of constitutionality. If the states for instance had deprived women or other minorities from voting on a proposed amendment in referendum or for legislators in assembly, SCOTUS would rule on the unconstitutionality of that.

picking and choosing read it again

You are deliberately being immorally obtuse. The point is very clear, and you are very wrong. No one here has said SCOTUS could change the Constitution. What SCOTUS does is to interpret the Constitution. End of argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake has proved he can't debate, can't abide by his own debate rules, he has proven he is a liar....

watch though...as soon as he thinks he has you in a gotcha moment where you can't back something up, he will hound you and cry foul if you don't back it up to his liking....notwithstanding he will not do so himself....

he is a two bit hack

saved

Nicely put.

Yurt has competently described what he and you do. He is following Rush's Rules for Fools: accuse the other side of what you do.

When you post evidence, I evaluate it and I let you know if it is good.

 

[Yurt]

And that has nothing to to with SCOTUS as the final reviewer of constitutionality. If the states for instance had deprived women or other minorities from voting on a proposed amendment in referendum or for legislators in assembly, SCOTUS would rule on the unconstitutionality of that.

picking and choosing read it again

You are deliberately being immorally obtuse. The point is very clear, and you are very wrong. No one here has said SCOTUS could change the Constitution. What SCOTUS does is to interpret the Constitution. End of argument.

once again....jake gets it wrong

if you make an interpretation of the constitution that is different than what most people believe, lets even say 99% of the people have always believed X = X because the constitution says so. and that is the way it has been done for 200 years.....

then the scotus comes along and alters that intepretation.....that is in fact changing the essence of constitution, because now, instead of possibly plain meaning or historical meaning, we have modern justices determining the meaning of the constitution.

this is exactly why the ACLU believes the scotus has "changed" if you will, the constitution by ruling on the second amendment the way it has.....

you suck jake

i'm at what, 6-0 against you....embarrassing

 

[Yurt]

saved

Nicely put.

Yurt has competently described what he and you do. He is following Rush's Rules for Fools: accuse the other side of what you do.

When you post evidence, I evaluate it and I let you know if it is good.

odd....i'm still waiting for your evidence i'm a racist and i don't support judicial review....

two bit hack