What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

When can "Constitutional Law" be Carved out of the Constitution?

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,621
Reaction score
6,689
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh

When I was in Law School I reluctantly understood and "accepted" the quasi-legal principle that the art of being a "good" lawyer is manifested when a lawyer makes a wonderful argument for something that is patently false. In fact, one's grades in law school are based on how well obscure legal issues can be extracted from complex fact patterns, resulting in strong arguments that stand reality on its head. My moral rejection of that philosophy coincided happily with my career as a commercial contract attorney, where the bullshit is more manageable.

The nice little legal/Constitutional argument presented in the linked essay elevates judge-made law to a level that is equal with the actual Constitution, even claiming that Supreme Court justices take an oath to follow stare decisis [even when the precedent is wrongly decided]. This is utter nonsense.

There is nothing in the Constitution that even contemplates abortion and the unavoidable "default position" is that it is a matter for the States to decide.

It will be very interesting indeed what the result is and what the various opinions say if this court does formally overturn RvW (which has not actually been the law for a long, long time). Fortunately, the Justices and their clerks are at least as artful as the author of the linked essay, and they will justify whatever they decide with lovely, logical arguments.
 

Hidden

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
2,829
Reaction score
1,286
Points
208
Location
Texas
No one cares what they will decide. There will always be abortions performed, as there always have been historically. Overturning Roe gives it back to the states. Some states will ok it, and those that don't will run a black market.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 

sparky

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
20,066
Reaction score
6,460
Points
350
Location
paradise

When I was in Law School I reluctantly understood and "accepted" the quasi-legal principle that the art of being a "good" lawyer is manifested when a lawyer makes a wonderful argument for something that is patently false. In fact, one's grades in law school are based on how well obscure legal issues can be extracted from complex fact patterns, resulting in strong arguments that stand reality on its head. My moral rejection of that philosophy coincided happily with my career as a commercial contract attorney, where the bullshit is more manageable.

The nice little legal/Constitutional argument presented in the linked essay elevates judge-made law to a level that is equal with the actual Constitution, even claiming that Supreme Court justices take an oath to follow stare decisis [even when the precedent is wrongly decided]. This is utter nonsense.

There is nothing in the Constitution that even contemplates abortion and the unavoidable "default position" is that it is a matter for the States to decide.

It will be very interesting indeed what the result is and what the various opinions say if this court does formally overturn RvW (which has not actually been the law for a long, long time). Fortunately, the Justices and their clerks are at least as artful as the author of the linked essay, and they will justify whatever they decide with lovely, logical arguments.
So, you're claiming constitutionality a 10ther issue DGS49?

~S~
 

ThoughtCrimes

Old Navy Vet
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
960
Points
245
Location
Desert Southwest

When I was in Law School I reluctantly understood and "accepted" the quasi-legal principle that the art of being a "good" lawyer is manifested when a lawyer makes a wonderful argument for something that is patently false. In fact, one's grades in law school are based on how well obscure legal issues can be extracted from complex fact patterns, resulting in strong arguments that stand reality on its head. My moral rejection of that philosophy coincided happily with my career as a commercial contract attorney, where the bullshit is more manageable.

The nice little legal/Constitutional argument presented in the linked essay elevates judge-made law to a level that is equal with the actual Constitution, even claiming that Supreme Court justices take an oath to follow stare decisis [even when the precedent is wrongly decided]. This is utter nonsense.

There is nothing in the Constitution that even contemplates abortion and the unavoidable "default position" is that it is a matter for the States to decide.

It will be very interesting indeed what the result is and what the various opinions say if this court does formally overturn RvW (which has not actually been the law for a long, long time). Fortunately, the Justices and their clerks are at least as artful as the author of the linked essay, and they will justify whatever they decide with lovely, logical arguments.

There is nothing in the Constitution that even contemplates abortion and the unavoidable "default position" is that it is a matter for the States to decide.
If your statement directly above is true, you have nullified Article VI's Supremacy Clause and pushed the US Constitution into the fire.

Article VI, Clause II
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The States DO NOT maintain supremacy in law over the Federal. That was why the Confederation of States was abolished and replaced by the Constitution!

Given your alleged occupation, you should be aware of how close to the cliff's brink the stability of ALL Article III Courts in this Country if stare decisis is rendered moot by another contrary precedent (temporal logic). So how will that work with Justices like Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and maybe Roberts sitting right now with the power to review or to ignore and violate their oath during their confirmation hearings.

And how would this Mississippi abortion case even be heard by SCOTUS given stare decisis combined with the precedent establishing judicial review (temperol logic again) in Marbury v. Madison?
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,621
Reaction score
6,689
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
Your citation of Article VI is complete nonsense, having nothing to do with rogue Supreme Court decisions.

Longstanding precedents have been overturned in the past - remember "separate but equal"? - and if the original case was wrongly decided, as RvW manifestly was, there is no CONSTITUTIONAL reason not to overturn it.

The oral arguments yesterday vindicate my position. As is usually the case.
 

ThoughtCrimes

Old Navy Vet
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
960
Points
245
Location
Desert Southwest
Your citation of Article VI is complete nonsense, having nothing to do with rogue Supreme Court decisions.
The citation IS relevant, accurate, a building block of Federalism and it is very relevant within the scope of the argument YOU initiated...as the "lawyer" you claimed to be. I don't believe you have a clue of exactly what Federalism truly is from what you have posted!

Longstanding precedents have been overturned in the past - remember "separate but equal"? -and if the original case was wrongly decided, as RvW manifestly was, there is no CONSTITUTIONAL reason not to overturn it.
So why was Plessy overturned when Brown trashed the 1896 KKKism of the "separate but equal" sophistry 58 years later? Obviously, because it was viewed through another panel of justices and Judicial Review. To go further yet, look at the decision in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US (1958). The Red Necks of Arkansas tried to block the decision of Brown v. Board on a bogus States Rights claim to keep the schools in Arkansas SEGREGATED. One of the findings of SCOTUS and the one most pertaining was the following:

"The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [ P. 358 U. S. 18. ]

And that is the Supremacy Clause and Federalism trumping States Rights, et al, in that case. To read up a bit more on the background of how both Hamilton and Madison, right from their Pens, explained this to the Americans of 1787 check it out in the Federalist Papers, #33 and #44!
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,621
Reaction score
6,689
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
When the court's decision validates my points, I will not expect your apology; it's something Leftists never do.
 

ThoughtCrimes

Old Navy Vet
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
960
Points
245
Location
Desert Southwest
When the court's decision validates my points, I will not expect your apology; it's something Leftists never do.
You have failed to make a single cogent or valid point, given you have failed to actually address those points made in either of my two responses to your irrational, unsupported and faulty assertions. Why would you claim to be a lawyer in your OP when you clearly lack the necessary knowledge, training and even avoid responding to the basic Constitutional arguments I've made?

BTW, I'm an Indy and conservative so you can chalk up another of your errors on your BS list!
 

Pellinore

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
936
Reaction score
439
Points
190
Your citation of Article VI is complete nonsense, having nothing to do with rogue Supreme Court decisions.

Longstanding precedents have been overturned in the past - remember "separate but equal"? - and if the original case was wrongly decided, as RvW manifestly was, there is no CONSTITUTIONAL reason not to overturn it.

The oral arguments yesterday vindicate my position. As is usually the case.
You made two different statements in the OP, and I think they're getting muddled.

Second one first:
There is nothing in the Constitution that even contemplates abortion and the unavoidable "default position" is that it is a matter for the States to decide.
It's true, the Constitution does not mention abortion expressly, but haven't implied powers such as the right to body autonomy and the right to privacy (including medical privacy) been used for the basis of Supreme Court decisions, pretty much back to the founding? They are the bases for express rights such as protection from search and seizure, protection from self-incrimination, and habeas corpus, and their presence in the Constitution, though implied, means that they are not subject to the 10th Amendment.

Also ...
The nice little legal/Constitutional argument presented in the linked essay elevates judge-made law to a level that is equal with the actual Constitution, even claiming that Supreme Court justices take an oath to follow stare decisis [even when the precedent is wrongly decided]. This is utter nonsense.
I don't think the article was implying that there was an absolute moratorium on setting new precedent; obviously, there isn't. I think it was referencing the various Justices' previous comments, and the understanding going back to Federalist 78, that Justices should not willy-nilly switch positions unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I think it's fair to say it should be rare, but allowed, which is fine.
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,621
Reaction score
6,689
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
Please cite the Constitutional wording that creates the "Right to Privacy."

It does not exist. Emanations and Penumbras don't count.

Let alone the "right to body autonomy." Do you just make this shit up?
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
8,227
Reaction score
2,970
Points
325

When I was in Law School I reluctantly understood and "accepted" the quasi-legal principle that the art of being a "good" lawyer is manifested when a lawyer makes a wonderful argument for something that is patently false. In fact, one's grades in law school are based on how well obscure legal issues can be extracted from complex fact patterns, resulting in strong arguments that stand reality on its head. My moral rejection of that philosophy coincided happily with my career as a commercial contract attorney, where the bullshit is more manageable.

The nice little legal/Constitutional argument presented in the linked essay elevates judge-made law to a level that is equal with the actual Constitution, even claiming that Supreme Court justices take an oath to follow stare decisis [even when the precedent is wrongly decided]. This is utter nonsense.

There is nothing in the Constitution that even contemplates abortion and the unavoidable "default position" is that it is a matter for the States to decide.

It will be very interesting indeed what the result is and what the various opinions say if this court does formally overturn RvW (which has not actually been the law for a long, long time). Fortunately, the Justices and their clerks are at least as artful as the author of the linked essay, and they will justify whatever they decide with lovely, logical arguments.

You all hate the Constitution as much as you accuse the left of doing. So shut up hypocrite.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top