Living Document or Not?

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, Squirt, the one who makes the first claim has to support it. You have problem with that? Then you are silly and not worth replying to. Those of you who play Rush's Rules for Fools end up falling on your faces. You do continually.

 

[Tech_Esq]

RICHMOND -- Who is the judge who will sentence Michael Vick on dogfigting charges?

His name is Henry E. Hudson.

He was born in Washington, D.C. in 1947.

Hudson graduated from American University in 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts. He also received his law degree from American in 1974.

He has been both a prosecutor and in private practice since 1974.

After serving as a circuit court judge in Fairfax County Virginia for four years, he was appointed to the federal court by President Bush in 2002.

He is seen as a tough jurist by lawyers in Virginia.

Hudson was born in Washington, D.C. He received a B.A. from American University in 1969. He received a J.D. from American University Washington College of Law in 1974. He was an Assistant commonwealth attorney of Commonwealth Attorney's Office, Arlington County, Virginia from 1974 to 1979. He was an Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia from 1978 to 1979. He was in private practice in 1979, 1991-1992 from 1994 to 1998. He was Commonwealth Attorney for Arlington County, Virginia from 1980 to 1986. He was a U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1986 to 1991. He was Director, U.S. Marshal Service, U.S. Department of Justice from 1992 to 1993. He was a Circuit court judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court (Fairfax County), Virginia from 1998 to 2002.

Henry E. Hudson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no idea what you are talking about on curing the severability clause in legislation. I did take legislation in law school but I don't recall that one, you'll have to enlighten me.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Also, he wrote a book called "Quest for Justice" about his life. If you are really interested, you can read that.

 

[Steerpike]

I have no idea what you are talking about on curing the severability clause in legislation. I did take legislation in law school but I don't recall that one, you'll have to enlighten me.

Courts are supposed to construe legislation in a way to hold it valid, if possible, right? I think I remember that was sort of the default in terms of separation of powers. So it seems to me that would also lead to a Court saving parts of a legislation if those parts are salvageable.

 

[Yurt]

Nah, the severability clause is easily remedied, and you know it. But first your side has got to get there, and the chances are very, very dim. I will let you look up the judge's background and rulings. Since you made the affirmative claims, I will let you provide the evidence before I respond it to it. Remember? Affirmation has post first, with evidence.

Yup, Squirt, the one who makes the first claim has to support it. You have problem with that? Then you are silly and not worth replying to. Those of you who play Rush's Rules for Fools end up falling on your faces. You do continually.

you made the claim it is "easily remedied"

i wonder if you will support it or run away again...would be nice to see you actually debate

 

[Tech_Esq]

I have no idea what you are talking about on curing the severability clause in legislation. I did take legislation in law school but I don't recall that one, you'll have to enlighten me.

Courts are supposed to construe legislation in a way to hold it valid, if possible, right? I think I remember that was sort of the default in terms of separation of powers. So it seems to me that would also lead to a Court saving parts of a legislation if those parts are salvageable.

My point on severability comes from Atty Gen. Cuccinelli. His point was if the law does not contain a severability clause (like most contracts do), then the court cannot, as a matter of law, "save parts of the law." If it does contain that, then you are right, it gets treated like the AZ law just did. The court has to parse it and see what parts to strike and what parts are retained.

So, that's his opinion, I don't really have an independent basis for saying one way or the other. I haven't done independent research on that point of law.

 

[Steerpike]

My point on severability comes from Atty Gen. Cuccinelli. His point was if the law does not contain a severability clause (like most contracts do), then the court cannot, as a matter of law, "save parts of the law." If it does contain that, then you are right, it gets treated like the AZ law just did. The court has to parse it and see what parts to strike and what parts are retained.

So, that's his opinion, I don't really have an independent basis for saying one way or the other. I haven't done independent research on that point of law.

OK, makes sense. Legislaton class was many moons ago, so I may not be remembering it correctly to being with.

 

[Tech_Esq]

My point on severability comes from Atty Gen. Cuccinelli. His point was if the law does not contain a severability clause (like most contracts do), then the court cannot, as a matter of law, "save parts of the law." If it does contain that, then you are right, it gets treated like the AZ law just did. The court has to parse it and see what parts to strike and what parts are retained.

So, that's his opinion, I don't really have an independent basis for saying one way or the other. I haven't done independent research on that point of law.

OK, makes sense. Legislaton class was many moons ago, so I may not be remembering it correctly to being with.

LOL....mine too. Let's see....1992, I think. Taught by the Chief Counsel for the ACLU of all people

 

[Steerpike]

1998 for me, but I don't do anything legislative in practice so it is all a bit fuzzy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

jakeass said I wasn't a conservative but a recationary, which that pisses me off when someone calls someone something when they don't even know the person. I told jakeass to call me anything else but a conservative you might as well be calling me a ******. So now I'm a racist. I guess all those blacks who go around using that word at a drop of a of hat are also racist.

You call people names all the time, so get off your rocking horse, crybaby.

Check my signature line to see what you wrote. Anyone who uses the n-word is a racist. You don't get to define what racism is. You get your own opinion but you don't have your own reality and your own definitions. Get over yourself, son.

And, yes, everything you write points out that you (like Dude, Yurt, Liability, etc) are not conservatives but far right wacky reactionaries hiding behind the conservative title. You are not conservative.

There are just a few that I trade name calling with punk. I only do it when I have had enough bullshit. horse shit you are not authorized to label anyone jakeass.

As for the word ******, I told you that if you call me anything other than a conservative then you might as well call me a ******. So you calling me something other then a Conservative is your attempt to call me a ******. I have explained that to you so call me anything other than a conservative then you are in fact calling me a derogatory name and might as well be the n word. And that includes racist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just because people don't like the document or what it may or may not allow does not mean it isn't a well constructed, easily understandable document. The fact that some don't like what it limits does not mean there is some problem with it. Hell, if you don't like it, it even gives you instructions on how to change it.

The problem is this whole living document thing. To me it's just an excuse. No one here can say that every law on the book or every program or every SCOTUS opinion comports with the constitution. Yet no one, by whom I mean congress, President and Supreme Court want to admit, that there are laws in place and opiniosn rendered that are not constittuional. Instead of doing so they say well it's a living document, or that's how we interpreted. Either make the case that everything currently in place is constittuional or that ignoring it is okay.

The only way to determine if laws are constitutional is for an issue to be brought before the court in the form of a lawsuit. So if no one sues on the grounds that a law is unconstitutional, how would we get a ruling? Unless of course you are suggesting that the Court sit down with a copy of the legal code and render an opinion on every single law?

No. That's not the "only" way we can determine that a law is unconstitutional.

If Congress for some ridiculous reason passed a law that said no white person (or no black person, it really doesn't matter which one for this silly hypothetical) would be eligible to serve in the nation's armed services -- or would no longer be permitted to vote in Federal elections unless they brought property tax receipts -- it would be a good thing if the President made a determination articulated in his veto message that the act was unconstitutional. He can do that, you know.

Now say that the idiot Congress overrode the veto. Then the President might simply REFUSE to enforce that law or permit anybody in the Federal branch to give it ANY effect.

NOW we might have a court battle looming. The jerkoffs in Congress MIGHT sue to compel the President to enforce the law, but the President might get the Court to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the bill is Unconstitutional. The point is, that whole "go to the SCOTUS" thing is not the only way to determine that something is a violation of the Constitution.

Hell. For that matter, if the SCOTUS were to determine that the Congressional act DIDN'T violate the Constitution, does anybody REALLY think that the obviously and facially unconstitutional Act is somehow now made pure and wholesome and Constitutional?

nicely written

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The fact is that the health insurance reform bill is constitutional until SCOTUS says it is not constitutional. And there are no actual constitutional grounds to challenge the bill.

Oh weasel your arguments get more ridiculous all the time. By this argument congress can pass any law it likes, blatantly unconstitutional or not. I guess you also believe that the fed has the constitutional authority to require private purchases of people. Find that one for me in the constitution please.

You are weaseling, Bern. SCOTUS determines constitutionality of a bill. You can have an opinion, but who cares what you think. You pay social security and medicare and medicaid taxes, I imagine, and, yes, you will either buy the insurance of have your taxes adjusted each year by the IRS.

Nothing unconstitutional with that at all.

You really need to move along with Liability and conhog and others. Nothing to see here, guys; move along now.

A Virigina Judge disagrees with you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nah, the severability clause is easily remedied, and you know it. But first your side has got to get there, and the chances are very, very dim. I will let you look up the judge's background and rulings. Since you made the affirmative claims, I will let you provide the evidence before I respond it to it. Remember? Affirmation has post first, with evidence.

ooops....jake admits he is a liberal

and pray tell how is the clause easily remedied? you can't go back and add it...

Are you surprised?

 

[JakeStarkey]

jakeass said I wasn't a conservative but a recationary, which that pisses me off when someone calls someone something when they don't even know the person. I told jakeass to call me anything else but a conservative you might as well be calling me a ******. So now I'm a racist. I guess all those blacks who go around using that word at a drop of a of hat are also racist.

You call people names all the time, so get off your rocking horse, crybaby.

Check my signature line to see what you wrote. Anyone who uses the n-word is a racist. You don't get to define what racism is. You get your own opinion but you don't have your own reality and your own definitions. Get over yourself, son.

And, yes, everything you write points out that you (like Dude, Yurt, Liability, etc) are not conservatives but far right wacky reactionaries hiding behind the conservative title. You are not conservative.

There are just a few that I trade name calling with punk. I only do it when I have had enough bullshit. horse shit you are not authorized to label anyone jakeass.

As for the word ******, I told you that if you call me anything other than a conservative then you might as well call me a ******. So you calling me something other then a Conservative is your attempt to call me a ******. I have explained that to you so call me anything other than a conservative then you are in fact calling me a derogatory name and might as well be the n word. And that includes racist.

Yes, I get that you are a racist and a reactionary. You don't get to define how the n-word is used, racist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only way to determine if laws are constitutional is for an issue to be brought before the court in the form of a lawsuit. So if no one sues on the grounds that a law is unconstitutional, how would we get a ruling? Unless of course you are suggesting that the Court sit down with a copy of the legal code and render an opinion on every single law?

No. That's not the "only" way we can determine that a law is unconstitutional.

If Congress for some ridiculous reason passed a law that said no white person (or no black person, it really doesn't matter which one for this silly hypothetical) would be eligible to serve in the nation's armed services -- or would no longer be permitted to vote in Federal elections unless they brought property tax receipts -- it would be a good thing if the President made a determination articulated in his veto message that the act was unconstitutional. He can do that, you know.

Now say that the idiot Congress overrode the veto. Then the President might simply REFUSE to enforce that law or permit anybody in the Federal branch to give it ANY effect.

NOW we might have a court battle looming. The jerkoffs in Congress MIGHT sue to compel the President to enforce the law, but the President might get the Court to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the bill is Unconstitutional. The point is, that whole "go to the SCOTUS" thing is not the only way to determine that something is a violation of the Constitution.

Hell. For that matter, if the SCOTUS were to determine that the Congressional act DIDN'T violate the Constitution, does anybody REALLY think that the obviously and facially unconstitutional Act is somehow now made pure and wholesome and Constitutional?

nicely written

Liability, you are just plain stupid. The final determiner of what is Constitutional is SCOTUS. Your silly hypothesis does not address that salient point. Now shut up if you can't address this.

You are such a reactionary munchkin right along with bigreb.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh weasel your arguments get more ridiculous all the time. By this argument congress can pass any law it likes, blatantly unconstitutional or not. I guess you also believe that the fed has the constitutional authority to require private purchases of people. Find that one for me in the constitution please.

You are weaseling, Bern. SCOTUS determines constitutionality of a bill. You can have an opinion, but who cares what you think. You pay social security and medicare and medicaid taxes, I imagine, and, yes, you will either buy the insurance of have your taxes adjusted each year by the IRS.

Nothing unconstitutional with that at all.

You really need to move along with Liability and conhog and others. Nothing to see here, guys; move along now.

A Virigina Judge disagrees with you.

Who can be overruled by SCOTUS, if it comes to that. Thanks for setting up my beat down of you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your side gang is the reactionary wingnutville far to the right of the conservatives.

Jeez, you guys are lame. No wonder good Republicans will have nothing to do with you.

Four posts in a row of revealing what a group of yurts you guys are. Come on, somebody, bring out the big stuff, because these oiks are making the far reactionary wing nuts look like a bunch of bozos.

 

[Yurt]

Nah, the severability clause is easily remedied, and you know it. But first your side has got to get there, and the chances are very, very dim. I will let you look up the judge's background and rulings. Since you made the affirmative claims, I will let you provide the evidence before I respond it to it. Remember? Affirmation has post first, with evidence.

ooops....jake admits he is a liberal

and pray tell how is the clause easily remedied? you can't go back and add it...

Are you surprised?

no...its just humorous to see the troll out himself

 

[Yurt]

Nah, the severability clause is easily remedied, and you know it. But first your side has got to get there, and the chances are very, very dim. I will let you look up the judge's background and rulings. Since you made the affirmative claims, I will let you provide the evidence before I respond it to it. Remember? Affirmation has post first, with evidence.

Yup, Squirt, the one who makes the first claim has to support it. You have problem with that? Then you are silly and not worth replying to. Those of you who play Rush's Rules for Fools end up falling on your faces. You do continually.

you made the claim it is "easily remedied"

i wonder if you will support it or run away again...would be nice to see you actually debate

and.......jake runs away again...

 

[JakeStarkey]

And yurt reveals that he is a liability (oh, I crack myself up ) to the far right wing nut reactionary crew.