Should the Supreme Court have the final say over what is Constitutional?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

ahhh, a flawed understanding of things mixed with an ideological bent. hmmm, I do respect your right to hold such opinions as much as I hold them in contempt.

It is not my understanding that is flawed.

 

[Dante]

It has been argued, quite truthfully in my opinion, that the Constitution and "constitutional law" are two completely different things.

By whom?

The tin man, the cowardly lion or the straw...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By whom?

The tin man, the cowardly lion or the straw...

Todo

 

[Dante]

States' rights refers to the idea, in U.S. politics and constitutional law, that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in relation to the federal government. A commonly cited source for states' rights is the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. The states' rights concept is usually used to defend a state law that the federal government seeks to override, or to oppose a perceived violation by the federal government of the bounds of federal authority.

hahahahahaha, the state's rights people have to rely on the Bill of Rights...a compromise that was argued at the time by the Founding Fathers.

Not exactly chaos. But some founders did in fact argue that the court did not have the authority to make the final determination. It was a source of disagreement.

my head is spinning!

 

[Dante]

Todo

I'd leave a <*woof> for you but Todo was a little yipper not a bow wow kinda dawg..

<*yip>

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

hahahahahaha, the state's rights people have to rely on the Bill of Rights...a compromise that was argued at the time by the Founding Fathers.



my head is spinning!

The rights listed in the Bill of Rights were not argued, whether it was necessary to have a Bill of Rights was argued. One side said that those rights were inherent in the Constitution, and others said that it needed to be fully defined in a Bill of Rights.

 

[Steerpike]

Again, wrong. As soon as the issue came up, in Marbury v Madison, it was ascertained that the ONLY way to keep the legislature and the executive from acting unconstitutionally was the Court.

Where are you getting your information?

This wasn't when the issue came up. The issue had been bandied about both in political and legal writings, the legislature, and other courts, since the founding of the country. Marbury was hardly the first time it came up.

And to say 'it was ascertained' as though this was the only logical outcome and it was accepted, is also incorrect. It was ascertained by Justice Marshall, but the whole thing takes place in a political context and it was as much a political necessity as anything else that drove Marshall. He knew what decision he needed to reach, the question was how to get there.

I don't think Marbury was even used directly as precedent for the power of judicial review for some time afterward (decades if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Dante]

It is not my understanding that is flawed.

that sir is open to debate.

 

[Steerpike]

Please, I'm begging you... the general welfare clause allows the government to take almost any action it deems necessary.

Actually the general welfare clause is quite limited. Most law passed by Congress is passed via the commerce clause. The general welfare clause supports very little of it.

The General Welfare clause was interpreted as quite limiting by SCOTUS early on in the history of the country.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

that sir is open to debate.

I believe that is what we've been doing, correct?

 

[Dante]

The rights listed in the Bill of Rights were not argued, whether it was necessary to have a Bill of Rights was argued. One side said that those rights were inherent in the Constitution, and others said that it needed to be fully defined in a Bill of Rights.

not true. not all the proposed amendments were ratified. and methinks you are speaking of Hamilton's position. Great man that one.

 

[Steerpike]

And just to explain to you how it works, we have a civil law system. That means it isn't solely statutory. It is a combination of statute and construction by caselaw. End of story.

With the exception of Louisiana, we have a common law system. Louisiana has a civil law system (from the French origin of law in the State).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

not true. not all the proposed amendments were ratified. and methinks you are speaking of Hamilton's position. Great man that one.

Hamilton being a great man is open to debate.

 

[Dante]

Again, wrong. As soon as the issue came up, in Marbury v Madison, it was ascertained that the ONLY way to keep the legislature and the executive from acting unconstitutionally was the Court.

Where are you getting your information?

This wasn't when the issue came up. The issue had been bandied about both in political and legal writings, the legislature, and other courts, since the founding of the country. Marbury was hardly the first time it came up.

And to say 'it was ascertained' as though this was the only logical outcome and it was accepted, is also incorrect. It was ascertained by Justice Marshall, but the whole thing takes place in a political context and it was as much a political necessity as anything else that drove Marshall. He knew what decision he needed to reach, the question was how to get there.

I don't think Marbury was even used directly as precedent for the power of judicial review for some time afterward (decades if I'm not mistaken).

As soon as the issue came up, in Marbury v Madison,

This wasn't when the issue came up.

a misunderstanding? She did not say that Marbury v Madison was when IT came up. I read she said when it came up in Marbury v Madison.

Let us be clear on what others are saying and not misrepresent what they say. Intentionally or not.

 

[Dante]

Actually the general welfare clause is quite limited. Most law passed by Congress is passed via the commerce clause. The general welfare clause supports very little of it.

The General Welfare clause was interpreted as quite limiting by SCOTUS early on in the history of the country.

law 101

 

[Dante]

I believe that is what we've been doing, correct?

debating the validity of your opinions? no we have not.

 

[Steerpike]

a misunderstanding? She did not say that Marbury v Madison was when IT came up. I read she said when it came up in Marbury v Madison.

Let us be clear on what others are saying and not misrepresent what they say. Intentionally or not.

You apparently do not understand the functioning of commas, which offset "Marbury v. Madison" in the post in question. As written, it clearly states that Marbury v. Madison is when the issue came up. Further, that reading is in context with the post as a whole and therefore makes sense. Your reading makes no sense in context of the post because it renders the post meaningless. Every case deals with the issue before the court in THAT case, so why would a post about it be necessary?

Try trolling another person.

EDIT:

By the way, Jillian is an attorney. I have no doubt she is quite capable of expressing her thoughts accurately and has done so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

debating the validity of your opinions? no we have not.

I meant that we have been debating the validity of our own opinions.

 

[Dante]

You apparently do not understand the functioning of commas, which offset "Marbury v. Madison" in the post in question. As written, it clearly states that Marbury v. Madison is when the issue came up. Further, that reading is in context with the post as a whole and therefore makes sense. Your reading makes no sense in context of the post because it renders the post meaningless. Every case deals with the issue before the court in THAT case, so why would a post about it be necessary?

Try trolling another person.

EDIT:

By the way, Jillian is an attorney. I have no doubt she is quite capable of expressing her thoughts accurately and has done so.

really? lol

really?

thanks for the tip.

 

[Dante]

I meant that we have been debating the validity of our own opinions.

not debating facts?