Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

[meaner gene]

You are dealing with an idiot who thinks that if any subpoena gave the right of the govt to see something on an individual basis, the govt has the right to see that same info on anyone and everyone in the US.

In short, he is a blithering idiot.

As it applied to one individual, it applies to every individual. Miller argued his bank records (deposit slips, and checks) were personal, and protected by the 4th. They were not.
As the opinion said, they were items used by the bank and freely distributed among it's employees.

 

[Nostra]

You are dealing with an idiot who thinks that if any subpoena gave the right of the govt to see something on an individual basis, the govt has the right to see that same info on anyone and everyone in the US.

In short, he is a blithering idiot.

As it applied to one individual, it applies to every individual. Miller argued his bank records (deposit slips, and checks) were personal, and protected by the 4th. They were not.
As the opinion said, they were items used by the bank and freely distributed among it's employees.

Thanks for proving my point that you are a blithering idiot.

That was easy.

 

[meaner gene]

What can't be "abridged"?

Even an "unabridged" dictionary, doesn't have every word in it.

Capiche?

 

[Nostra]

What can't be "abridged"?

Even an "unabridged" dictionary, doesn't have every word in it.

Capiche?

Just nonsense from you.


I accept your capitulation.

 

[meaner gene]

It would be perfectly legal for a president to exclude women from his appointments to federal positions, including the courts, executive agencies and the military.

Appointments are a lot different than hiring. And no he can't unilaterally exclude women from military service. Hell the court has said military academies have to admit women. See US v. Virginia.

And as I said, the President doesn't have to grant them a commission.

US v Virginia didn't change that.

 

[meaner gene]

What can't be "abridged"?

Even an "unabridged" dictionary, doesn't have every word in it.

Capiche?

Just nonsense from you.


I accept your capitulation.

Only because you're too stupid to understand.

You completely missed Miller v US and bank records.

 

[Nostra]

What can't be "abridged"?

Even an "unabridged" dictionary, doesn't have every word in it.

Capiche?

Just nonsense from you.


I accept your capitulation.

Only because you're too stupid to understand.

You completely missed Miller v US and bank records.

No I didn't, Simpleton.

Once again I accept your capitulation.

 

[OKTexas]

Poor little commie, you can't deny or abridge a right if it doesn't exist in the first place.

.

Sure you can. The endangered species act still continues to cover species after they have gone extinct.

Before the 17th state legislatures decided how to select senators, and they could let the people vote, or they could chose them directly. The 15th didn't give people the right to vote for president or senator.

LMAO, the endangered species act has never covered species that haven't existed.

And your observations on the 15th are irrelevant to the fact that it specifically addressed the right to vote.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Only because you're too stupid to understand.

You completely missed Miller v US and bank records.

No I didn't, Simpleton.

Once again I accept your capitulation.

This is where you came in, ready to put your foot in your mouth

It was already ruled that bank records like deposit slips are not personal records, but business records. The same with checks. You have no right to privacy against the bank disclosing them.

Link?

I posted US v. Miller, which specifically excluded deposit slips and checks from 4th amendment (privacy) protection.

 

[Nostra]

Poor little commie, you can't deny or abridge a right if it doesn't exist in the first place.

.

Sure you can. The endangered species act still continues to cover species after they have gone extinct.

Before the 17th state legislatures decided how to select senators, and they could let the people vote, or they could chose them directly. The 15th didn't give people the right to vote for president or senator.

The endangered species act still continues to cover species after they have gone extinct.

Why would it do that?

 

[Nostra]

Only because you're too stupid to understand.

You completely missed Miller v US and bank records.

No I didn't, Simpleton.

Once again I accept your capitulation.

This is where you came in, ready to put your foot in your mouth

It was already ruled that bank records like deposit slips are not personal records, but business records. The same with checks. You have no right to privacy against the bank disclosing them.

Link?

I posted US v. Miller, which specifically excluded deposit slips and checks from 4th amendment (privacy) protection.

In ONE particular instance.

Are you really trying to say the govt can see anyone and everyone's deposit slips and checks because of that one ruling? Please tell us you aren't that stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

24th amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

This didn't grant convicted felons the right to vote. As you said

Poor little commie, you can't deny or abridge a right if it doesn't exist in the first place.

And?

.

 

[meaner gene]

And your observations on the 15th are irrelevant to the fact that it specifically addressed the right to vote.

If the 15th acknowledged a right to vote, then the 17th would not have been necessary.

In fact, if any of the amendments you listed preventing the right to be abridged, granted the right to vote, there would have been no need for any of the proceeding amendments.

 

[meaner gene]

The endangered species act still continues to cover species after they have gone extinct.

Why would it do that?

Because there can be no absolute proof of a species status. It's like bigfoot or the loch ness monster.

 

[OKTexas]

And your observations on the 15th are irrelevant to the fact that it specifically addressed the right to vote.

If the 15th acknowledged a right to vote, then the 17th would not have been necessary.

In fact, if any of the amendments you listed preventing the right to be abridged, granted the right to vote, there would have been no need for any of the proceeding amendments.

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you have no clue what the **** your talking about. You're dismissed.

.

 

[meaner gene]

In fact, if any of the amendments you listed preventing the right to be abridged, granted the right to vote, there would have been no need for any of the proceeding amendments.

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you have no clue what the **** your talking about. You're dismissed.

You said the right to vote was in the constitution.

See Article 1 Section 2, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments

You've shown the constitution indeed, doesn't give an explicit right to vote, except to add that right in a piecemeal fashion.

Instead of granting the right, it nickle and dimes it.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

No where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.

Well, there remains the Preamble to the Constitution, which I think pretty definitely establishes that the very sovereignty upon which the whole structure of the Constitution rests is “We the People” — a very collective concept if ever there was one. Also there is the usually ignored Ninth Amendment, which argues “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It does not specify “by indIviduals.” Of course the history of case law, precedent, tradition, Supreme Court rulings, all evolved along with private property’s evolution (into powerful corporate form). This evolution has indeed relegated the words of the Preamble about promoting “the general welfare” almost moot ...

Are "the people" not comprised of individuals? Also activist courts have almost rendered all of Article 1, Section 8 which enumerates the majority of governments powers, moot.

If you want a good education on the topic I suggest you read Men in Black, by Mark Levin. It has a lot of technical language which make is somewhat hard to read by a layman, but it's worth the time.

Sorry, but we are speaking past one another here. Your recommendation of that book, the full title of which is “Men in Black, How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America” is discouraging. The author is in my opinion not a thoughtful scholar on Constitutional Law but a political hack frequently appearing on The Rush Limbaugh Show. I’ve seen him on FOX news, as a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show, and he joined with Glenn Beck’s network The Blaze in 2018 to form Blaze Media.

Of course he has a right to his opinions, as do you, but I’m not interested in tracing the problems with our Court system back to Marbury vs. Madison. Levin’s views as expressed frequently on TV and rightwing media seem to have in his book (which I have not and do not plan to read) taken a peculiar form of “Originalism” which doesn’t interest me or most Constitutional or Court scholars, or SC Justices — be they appointed by Democrats or Republicans (as most now are).

The Supreme Court’s history and the country’s evolution have generally gone together, and when they have diverged it has generally been the Federal Courts that have ultimately had to catch up and deal with changing reality, not the other way around. In my opinion, any view that sees the Supreme Court or the Federal Court System as a key force destroying “America” ... really misses the whole point and problem.

 

[OKTexas]

In fact, if any of the amendments you listed preventing the right to be abridged, granted the right to vote, there would have been no need for any of the proceeding amendments.

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you have no clue what the **** your talking about. You're dismissed.

You said the right to vote was in the constitution.

See Article 1 Section 2, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments

You've shown the constitution indeed, doesn't give an explicit right to vote, except to add that right in a piecemeal fashion.

Instead of granting the right, it nickle and dimes it.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2​

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article 2 refers to voters as electors, so tell the class how a representative gets elected.

Now run along commie, you're boring the hell out me.

.

 

[OKTexas]

No where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.

Well, there remains the Preamble to the Constitution, which I think pretty definitely establishes that the very sovereignty upon which the whole structure of the Constitution rests is “We the People” — a very collective concept if ever there was one. Also there is the usually ignored Ninth Amendment, which argues “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It does not specify “by indIviduals.” Of course the history of case law, precedent, tradition, Supreme Court rulings, all evolved along with private property’s evolution (into powerful corporate form). This evolution has indeed relegated the words of the Preamble about promoting “the general welfare” almost moot ...

Are "the people" not comprised of individuals? Also activist courts have almost rendered all of Article 1, Section 8 which enumerates the majority of governments powers, moot.

If you want a good education on the topic I suggest you read Men in Black, by Mark Levin. It has a lot of technical language which make is somewhat hard to read by a layman, but it's worth the time.

Sorry, but we are speaking past one another here. Your recommendation of that book, the full title of which is “Men in Black, How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America” is discouraging. The author is in my opinion not a thoughtful scholar on Constitutional Law but a political hack frequently appearing on The Rush Limbaugh Show. I’ve seen him on FOX news, as a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show, and he joined with Glenn Beck’s network The Blaze in 2018 to form Blaze Media.

Of course he has a right to his opinions, as do you, but I’m not interested in tracing the problems with our Court system back to Marbury vs. Madison. Levin’s views as expressed frequently on TV and rightwing media seem to have in his book (which I have not and do not plan to read) taken a peculiar form of “Originalism” which doesn’t interest me or most Constitutional or Court scholars, or SC Justices — be they appointed by Democrats or Republicans (as most now are).

The Supreme Court’s history and the country’s evolution have generally gone together, and when they have diverged it has generally been the Federal Courts that have ultimately had to catch up and deal with changing reality, not the other way around. In my opinion, any view that sees the Supreme Court or the Federal Court System as a key force destroying “America” ... really misses the whole point and problem.

Stay ignorant, I really don't care.

.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

No where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.

Well, there remains the Preamble to the Constitution, which I think pretty definitely establishes that the very sovereignty upon which the whole structure of the Constitution rests is “We the People” — a very collective concept if ever there was one. Also there is the usually ignored Ninth Amendment, which argues “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It does not specify “by indIviduals.” Of course the history of case law, precedent, tradition, Supreme Court rulings, all evolved along with private property’s evolution (into powerful corporate form). This evolution has indeed relegated the words of the Preamble about promoting “the general welfare” almost moot ...

Are "the people" not comprised of individuals? Also activist courts have almost rendered all of Article 1, Section 8 which enumerates the majority of governments powers, moot.

If you want a good education on the topic I suggest you read Men in Black, by Mark Levin. It has a lot of technical language which make is somewhat hard to read by a layman, but it's worth the time.

Sorry, but we are speaking past one another here. Your recommendation of that book, the full title of which is “Men in Black, How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America” is discouraging. The author is in my opinion not a thoughtful scholar on Constitutional Law but a political hack frequently appearing on The Rush Limbaugh Show. I’ve seen him on FOX news, as a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show, and he joined with Glenn Beck’s network The Blaze in 2018 to form Blaze Media.

Of course he has a right to his opinions, as do you, but I’m not interested in tracing the problems with our Court system back to Marbury vs. Madison. Levin’s views as expressed frequently on TV and rightwing media seem to have in his book (which I have not and do not plan to read) taken a peculiar form of “Originalism” which doesn’t interest me or most Constitutional or Court scholars, or SC Justices — be they appointed by Democrats or Republicans (as most now are).

The Supreme Court’s history and the country’s evolution have generally gone together, and when they have diverged it has generally been the Federal Courts that have ultimately had to catch up and deal with changing reality, not the other way around. In my opinion, any view that sees the Supreme Court or the Federal Court System as a key force destroying “America” ... really misses the whole point and problem.

Stay ignorant, I really don't care.

Since you have resorted to calling me “ignorant” ...

because I criticize a famous rightwing political journalist and associate of Glenn Beck whose book appears to sum up your views of the Supreme Court and its history ...

even after my long posts here, starting with ...
Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.
and continuing with ...
Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.
and also with ...

Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors. There is probably not a single Supreme...

www.usmessageboard.com

I feel I should return the “favor” ...

not with an insult, but with my own book suggestion ...

Folks should read “We the Corporations.” It is a marvelous historical work by a Law Professor whose articles have appeared not in The Blaze but in the Wall Street Journal and many other publications :

Amazon.com: We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights (9781631495441): Winkler, Adam: Books