Bodybuilding.com Information Motivation Supplementation
in:

    The World’s #1 Bodybuilding And Fitness Forum - Save Up To 50% Off Retail Prices In Our Bodybuilding.com Store!

Reply
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 87
  1. #31
    Banned thequant's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Age: 27
    Posts: 531
    Rep Power: 0
    thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank) thequant is the lowest scum of the boards. (Worst Rank)
    thequant is offline
    Originally Posted by ghengisconor View Post
    Ok. And what if Congress does? What if Congress says, "**** you guys, we're passing legislation for any reason we want. we dont' care if it conflicts with the constitution."

    Then what?
    They've sort of already done that..

    War powers act, federal reserve act, etc.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #32
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    It's not that hasn't read the Constitution. It's clear that he does not accept the wording in the Constitution.

    The Necessary and Proper Clause been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.
    States have challenged the Federal government's authority in law making issues via the 10th Amendment. What court did the interpretation of Article II section 8 get sent to for the answer???

    Hint: It was not a court in the state that was challenging the Federal government's authority....
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  3. #33
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by ghengisconor View Post
    Ok. And what if Congress does? What if Congress says, "**** you guys, we're passing legislation for any reason we want. we dont' care if it conflicts with the constitution."

    Then what?
    What are we supposed to do when the federal government gets out of control? Are you seriously trying to argue that the answer is to sede the authority of the people to the authority of another branch of that same federal government?

    It is the responsibility of the people to reign in the government when it gets out of control. The government is a creation of the people, a tool to be used by the people, and is entirely at the mercy of the people. When a tool breaks, you fix it, or you replace it.
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  4. #34
    Banned ghengisconor's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: Wilmington, Delaware, United States
    Stats: 6'1", 219 lbs
    Posts: 3,898
    BodyPoints: 650
    Rep Power: 0
    ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit ghengisconor's BodySpace
    ghengisconor is offline
    Originally Posted by Stizzel View Post
    What are we supposed to do when the federal government gets out of control? Are you seriously trying to argue that the answer is to sede the authority of the people to the authority of another branch of that same federal government?

    It is the responsibility of the people to reign in the government when it gets out of control. The government is a creation of the people, a tool to be used by the people, and is entirely at the mercy of the people. When a tool breaks, you fix it, or you replace it.
    answer the question.

    what happens when congress passes a law that is in conflict with the constitution? even if slightly so.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #35
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    I wonder if Janet Napolitano and people inside DHS are reading this thread?
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  6. #36
    Banned ghengisconor's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: Wilmington, Delaware, United States
    Stats: 6'1", 219 lbs
    Posts: 3,898
    BodyPoints: 650
    Rep Power: 0
    ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit ghengisconor's BodySpace
    ghengisconor is offline
    Originally Posted by gjohnson5 View Post
    I wonder if Janet Napolitano and people inside DHS are reading this thread?
    nah. they're too busy studying Janet Reno's playbook.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #37
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    Originally Posted by ghengisconor View Post
    nah. they're too busy studying Janet Reno's playbook.
    He's seems to be heading to the armed conflict style of resolution. That seems to be popular since atleast 1 state is not getting what it wants and is making threats of seceding.....

    All I'm saying is that the memo that Janet Napalitano's group created about conservative groups has a great deal of truth to it. He even said that 'the people have authority'... Unfortunately that's not how our government was designed. If people want that , the we need to setup a Democratic government. You somehow have to "overrule" the style government we already have in place
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  8. #38
    Banned ghengisconor's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: Wilmington, Delaware, United States
    Stats: 6'1", 219 lbs
    Posts: 3,898
    BodyPoints: 650
    Rep Power: 0
    ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) ghengisconor has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit ghengisconor's BodySpace
    ghengisconor is offline
    Originally Posted by gjohnson5 View Post
    He's seems to be heading to the armed conflict style of resolution. That seems to be popular since atleast 1 state is not getting what it wants and is making threats of seceding.....

    All I'm saying is that the memo that Janet Napalitano's group created about conservative groups has a great deal of truth to it. He even said that 'the people have authority'... Unfortunately that's not how our government was designed. If people want that , the we need to setup a Democratic government. You somehow have to "overrule" the style government we already have in place
    i'm not sure where you're going with that. Bush authorized the study. Napalitano's crew concluded it. If there is a threat, be it right or left wing, I imagine the government is going to look into it. There is no denying that right-wing/christian extremists do pose a threat to the functions of government. It is no different than the threat posed by radical Muslims. If the government had any particular usefulness, it is to ensure domestic tranquility and uphold the law. This is a report, not a law or an act.
    Reply With Quote

  9. #39
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    Originally Posted by ghengisconor View Post
    i'm not sure where you're going with that. Bush authorized the study. Napalitano's crew concluded it. If there is a threat, be it right or left wing, I imagine the government is going to look into it. There is no denying that right-wing/christian extremists do pose a threat to the functions of government. It is no different than the threat posed by radical Muslims. If the government had any particular usefulness, it is to ensure domestic tranquility and uphold the law. This is a report, not a law or an act.
    I'm saying that those conservative / libertarian folks shouldn't be alarmed when a memo is leaked that is basically talking about them... if they choose to have similar beliefs like the OP's, you're going to look like a fringe group.... Someone needs to product a memo that says 'The US is not a democracy' because it is not and never was
    Last edited by gjohnson5; 04-18-2009 at 11:12 AM.
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  10. #40
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 59
    Posts: 20,173
    BodyPoints: 12761
    Rep Power: 8371
    all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) all pro has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit all pro's BodySpace
    all pro is offline
    The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient.

    The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.

    Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

    Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.

    For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

    All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.

    The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

    The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

    The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3
    Bodybuilder, n. A weight lifter too weak to be a powerlifter.
    Powerlifter, n. A weight lifter too fat to be a bodybuilder.
    HIT Jedi, n. The fitness equivalent to Al Qaeda, except
    rather than fly planes into buildings, devotees fly
    steaming piles of dogmatic horse**** into your ears
    and down your throat.

    Every thing works..........for about 6 weeks.
    Hard gainer = under eater
    _____________________________________________

    R.I.P.
    Lynn Larsen
    5/17/86 - 9/14/06
    Bridgeport Ct.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #41
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    A great article on the subject:

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/794

    The Dangers of Judicial Review

    Imagine that certain investors have set up a business under a charter and by-laws that specifically provide for a number of managers assigned to oversee various separate and independent branches of the company, all of whom must answer ultimately to the investors. One of the managers then announces that: (i) he alone will determine, not only when the other managers are not in compliance with the company's policies, but also what those policies actually are; (ii) the investors will have no say in the making of these determinations; and (iii) if the investors dissent from his unilateral determinations, their only recourse will be to re-write the company's charter and by-laws, subject to the manager's own interpretations of what such amendments mean. How long would any investors in their right minds tolerate such a topsy-turvy state of affairs? Yet this is precisely how the governments of the United States and the states operate under the contemporary doctrine of "judicial supremacy."

    "Judicial supremacy" is a radical over-extension — indeed, perversion — of the legitimate doctrines of "judicial review" and stare decisis ("to stand by matters that have been settled"). "Judicial review" posits simply that the Supreme Court has the authority to — and as a practical matter often must — construe the Constitution in the course of deciding what the Constitution describes as "Cases" and "Controversies" that come before the court. An opinion of the Supreme Court on a constitutional issue ascertains and applies the meaning of the Constitution on that particular point of law, under the peculiar facts of that case or controversy, as against the actual parties then before the court — but generally affects no one else. Stare decisis is merely the judicial policy that courts, in order to promote predictability and stability in the law, should abide by their previous decisions in future cases that raise the selfsame legal issues under substantially equivalent sets of facts — unless sound reasons exist for departing from those rulings.

    "Judicial supremacy" further claims, however, that an opinion of the Supreme Court determines and fixes the meaning of the Constitution as to the issue then under dispute, not simply as against the actual parties before the court, with respect to the specific facts of their case, but in principle as against everyone in the world similarly situated in all other imaginable cases — and, in particular, as against Congress, the president, the states, and even "We the People." That is, upon its mere enunciation the opinion itself becomes "the supreme Law of the Land" on that point of law, which everyone else, everywhere, is required to accept and follow.

    Moreover, "judicial supremacy" asserts that: (i) a point of constitutional law decided in an opinion of the Supreme Court can be overruled or otherwise modified only by a later opinion of the Supreme Court or by a formal amendment of the Constitution (the meaning of which the court itself will decide under "judicial supremacy"); and (ii) nothing ought to, or even can, be done to the justices of the Supreme Court, individually or collectively, as a consequence of any opinion they hand down on an issue of constitutional law, no matter how obviously erroneous, politically motivated, economically or socially destructive, or even knowingly and willfully false and fraudulent it may be. Thus, under "judicial supremacy" the Supreme Court perverts "judicial review" and stare decisis into mechanisms for supervising, revising, reversing, and precluding the acts of all other branches of government — including the states and their subdivisions, the General Government, and even "We the People" themselves.

    "Judicial supremacy" contradicts the Declaration of Independence's overarching principle of popular sovereignty — that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" — which mandates a government (as Abraham Lincoln correctly described it) "of the people, by the people, and for the people," not arbitrary rule by judicial (or any other) elitists responsible to no one but themselves. The Constitution's Preamble itself declares that "We the People" — not "we the judges" — "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Supreme Court itself has recognized that the power to enact "carries with it final authority to declare the meaning of the legislation." Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949). And Sir William Blackstone, the Founding Fathers' legal mentor, emphasized that "whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to." Commentaries on the Laws of England (American Edition, 1771), Volume 1, at 212.

    "Judicial supremacy" nonsensically assumes that the meaning of the Constitution's provisions are (i) largely unknown, or even unknowable, unless and until each provision becomes the subject of some opinion of the Supreme Court, and (ii) politically plastic, in that the meaning of those provisions can, and even should, change from era to era as the Supreme Court deems advisable.

    First, each and every provision of the Constitution in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791 had to have meanings known to, or at least knowable by, the people who ratified them at those times. Otherwise, as a matter of law, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights ever became "laws" at all. For "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v. General Construction Company, 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Except in the minds of inmates of mental institutions, "the supreme Law of the Land" cannot violate "the first essential of due process of law." And if, because of their supposed vagueness, various provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had not became "laws" at their inceptions, none of them could ever have been magically transformed into "laws" later on, simply because some majority among the justices of the Supreme Court purported to discover what those provisions supposedly meant for the first time at that subsequent date.

    In practice, too, the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have depended upon judicial interpretations. After all, the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution was ratified. No judicial decisions interpreting the Bill of Rights were extant when those first 10 Amendments were ratified, either. And from then until the present day, potential constitutional issues in untold numbers have yet to arise in judicial cases or controversies. Nonetheless, from ratification of the Constitution onward, public officeholders have been "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution" — or, in the case of the president of the United States, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Article VI, Clause 3 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7. None of these individuals could honestly have taken such an "Oath or Affirmation" if they did not know, or did not think they knew, what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in their entireties, actually meant at that moment in time — or if they believed that what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean can be derived only from, and may unexpectedly change with, decisions of different majorities of justices of the Supreme Court as their opinions are handed down in some distant and uncertain future.

    Self-evidently, because at the very beginning, even without the intermediation of courts, "We the People" had to know what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meant, "We the People" today must be equally capable of discerning those meanings independently of any judicial decisions. For, contrary to the apologists for "judicial supremacy," the Constitution most emphatically is not simply and arbitrarily "what the judges say it is" from time to time. The Constitution is what it says it is, both then and now. And that alone is what judges are "bound by [their] Oath[s] or Affirmation[s]" to say that it is. No judicial opinion can judge or control the Constitution — instead, the Constitution judges and controls all judicial opinions.

    What the Constitution says it is has been called its "original intent." Actually, the term "original intent" is somewhat misleading, because the Constitution's "original intent" is also its present intent, unless an amendment has supervened, in which case the "original intent" of the amendment becomes its present intent. In any event, "original intent" most obviously takes in words or phrases that the Constitution actually defines, such as "Treason." Article III, Section 3, Clause 1. It also embraces words and phrases that, although not explicitly defined, can be defined by reference to those portions of English common law adopted in America, to the laws of the Colonies and independent states, and to the Articles of Confederation — for example, "Militia of the several States" and a "well regulated Militia" in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 and the Second Amendment, which neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights defines, but the meanings of which appear in numerous Militia statutes the Colonies and independent states enacted from the 1600s through the War of Independence. And "original intent" looks as well to the common usages of other words and phrases at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, particularly in the light of American legal and political history and philosophy.

    Second, contrary to apologists for "judicial supremacy," "original intent" cannot be superseded by their doctrine of "the living Constitution." In historical context, "the living Constitution" is nonsensical. "We the People" having "ordain[ed] and establish[ed]" the Constitution in the manner most obviously understandable by themselves — that is, by committing its words and phrases to paper; and "We the People" having authorized no one to "interpret" the Constitution in any manner other than by imparting to its words and phrases their legal or common meanings, as understood by the people themselves at that time; and, in fact, no other method having been available to "We the People" for construing their Constitution when they ratified it; therefore, "original intent" was then and remains today the one and only practical and legitimate means for interpreting the Constitution.

    Continued on the link...
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  12. #42
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by gjohnson5 View Post
    I'm saying that those conservative / libertarian folks shouldn't be alarmed when a memo is leaked that is basically talking about them... if they choose to have similar beliefs like the OP's, you're going to look like a fringe group.... Someone needs to product a memo that says 'The US is not a democracy' because it is not and never was
    The constitution is fringe, and the government should be treating 'fringe' groups as terrorists?

    Its going to be fun watching the DNC split down the middle as fascists like yourself alienate true leftists.
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  13. #43
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by ghengisconor View Post
    answer the question.

    what happens when congress passes a law that is in conflict with the constitution? even if slightly so.
    And what did I tell you? Its the responsibility of the people to handle it.
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  14. #44
    i love eggs GoutDeMiel's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2008
    Age: 29
    Stats: 5'8", 139 lbs
    Posts: 7,489
    Rep Power: 2457
    GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit GoutDeMiel's BodySpace
    GoutDeMiel is offline
    hrm.

    would make an interesting SC case. serious.
    domari nolo
    Reply With Quote

  15. #45
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    that's assuming there is an issue that a person or a state can file suit over in this thread. I myself do not see one
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  16. #46
    Message Board King Bluerain's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2005
    Posts: 5,507
    BodyPoints: 1880
    Rep Power: 4453
    Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Bluerain has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit Bluerain's BodySpace
    Bluerain is offline
    In the end it wouldn't be the supreme court who would interpret the constitution ....it would be the political party in power who appoints the supreme court judges knowing they will interpret the constitution in their favor to push their agenda.

    So as long as the goverment ( President ) has this power ( To Appoint SCJ's ) it's unconstitutional.

    There are some things that aren't clear or are clear ( Depending upon the view of the political party ) but due to politicians with an agenda will argue it's a grey area and needs to be cleared up appointing a judge that leans in their favor.

    But..do we want to give this power to the people ? The way things are as they stand now I'm not too sure about giving this kind of power to The People .

    Most SCJ's do get approved..

    "Since the
    appointment of the first Justices in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 120 Supreme
    Court nominations out of 154 received. Of the 34 unsuccessful nominations, 11
    were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of
    committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by
    the President or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate."
    Last edited by Bluerain; 04-18-2009 at 10:28 PM.
    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."~~~Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote

  17. #47
    i love eggs GoutDeMiel's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2008
    Age: 29
    Stats: 5'8", 139 lbs
    Posts: 7,489
    Rep Power: 2457
    GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit GoutDeMiel's BodySpace
    GoutDeMiel is offline
    Originally Posted by gjohnson5 View Post
    that's assuming there is an issue that a person or a state can file suit over in this thread. I myself do not see one
    good point. i could think of some crazy, farfetched senarios, but they're exactly that.

    i'm a law student so i studied Marbury v. Madison like WHOA.

    was it brought up at all yet? didn't read the entire thread yet.
    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/marbury.html

    i think the court's arguments are decent overall and most see them as such, but they've kind of seemed circular to me. yeah, my law professor hated me lol
    domari nolo
    Reply With Quote

  18. #48
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by GoutDeMiel View Post
    hrm.

    would make an interesting SC case. serious.
    lol, the supreme court already made its opinion very clear.
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  19. #49
    i love eggs GoutDeMiel's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2008
    Age: 29
    Stats: 5'8", 139 lbs
    Posts: 7,489
    Rep Power: 2457
    GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) GoutDeMiel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit GoutDeMiel's BodySpace
    GoutDeMiel is offline
    Originally Posted by Stizzel View Post
    lol, the supreme court already made its opinion very clear.
    lol true.

    i'd like to see Marbury v. Madison get legitimately challenged though.
    domari nolo
    Reply With Quote

  20. #50
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by GoutDeMiel View Post
    lol true.

    i'd like to see Marbury v. Madison get legitimately challenged though.
    I think it may not need to be challenged. According to American Jurisprudence all of the unconstitutional laws the SC has ruled constitutional are void, regardles of what the SC says.

    And gjohnson, article 3 gives the supreme court the authority to resolve disputes, not interpret the constitution. You can figure out the difference on your own.

    Gout, I saw you mention that their arguments are circular in that case. When that justice was asked after the case was closed where he got the authority to interpret the constitution in the first place, and his answer was literally something along the lines of 'because I said so'.
    Last edited by Stizzel; 04-18-2009 at 10:33 PM.
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  21. #51
    conscientious jmonty's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Location: United States
    Stats: 6'1", 231 lbs
    Posts: 25,764
    BodyPoints: 9621
    Rep Power: 55487
    jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) jmonty has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit jmonty's BodySpace
    jmonty is offline
    do you really think a precedent over two hundred years old can be overturned? or should be?
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ ★cVc★ ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆ Roflcopter Crew ☆☆☆☆☆
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆ PC Master Race ☆☆☆☆☆
    ☆ /\^/\^Misc Colorado Crew^/\^/\☆
    Reply With Quote

  22. #52
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by jmonty View Post
    do you really think a precedent over two hundred years old can be overturned? or should be?
    Do you think its okay for a person or a group of people to say they have authority over the constitution?

    If not, what is the time line before they grandfather out and this suddenly becomes acceptable?
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  23. #53
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    Originally Posted by Stizzel View Post

    And gjohnson, article 3 gives the supreme court the authority to resolve disputes, not interpret the constitution. You can figure out the difference on your own.
    Unfortunately you're wrong (as usual)
    They are one in the same. The only distinction here is the one in your mind alone
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  24. #54
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by gjohnson5 View Post
    Unfortunately you're wrong (as usual)
    They are one in the same. The only distinction here is the one in your mind alone
    What a compelling argument
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  25. #55
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    Originally Posted by Stizzel View Post
    What a compelling argument
    It wasn't an argument. It was a fact.
    That's the whole problem with this thread.... Until an issue is raised that can be argued , I see no issue here
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  26. #56
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by gjohnson5 View Post
    It wasn't an argument. It was a fact.
    That's the whole problem with this thread.... Until an issue is raised that can be argued , I see no issue here
    Please point out specifically where in article iii you see the authority to interpret the constitution given.

    How can a court define the Constitution when the Constitution defines the courts?

    Edit: I know how you hate to give up defending a retarded position, but even the supreme court today references its own ruling as the source of its authority. Doesn't even mention article III.

    I'm sure you'll still argue though. Fascists are nothing if not stubborn.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf
    Last edited by Stizzel; 04-18-2009 at 11:21 PM.
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  27. #57
    Limited Liability Partner gjohnson5's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
    Age: 41
    Stats: 5'9", 210 lbs
    Posts: 9,238
    BodyPoints: 15804
    Rep Power: 2751
    gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) gjohnson5 has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit gjohnson5's BodySpace
    gjohnson5 is offline
    Originally Posted by Stizzel View Post
    Please point out specifically where in article iii you see the authority to interpret the constitution given.
    Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

    Section 1 - Judicial powers

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

    (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)


    Seems pretty cut and dry to me
    Kickin your azz everytime
    Reply With Quote

  28. #58
    Putinskiye Glavniye Stizzel's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 32,400
    Rep Power: 14546
    Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) Stizzel has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Stizzel is offline
    Originally Posted by gjohnson5 View Post
    Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

    Section 1 - Judicial powers

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

    (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)


    Seems pretty cut and dry to me
    It seems cut and dry to you because you're a moron. Even the supreme court disagrees with you. Nowhere in anything you posted does the constitution say anything about interpreting the document.

    Which only makes sense because if the constitution defines the courts, the courts cannot define the constitution.

    Article III also establishes that the judicial is co equal with the other two branches, which is not possible if the judicial is above the constitution and the legislative and executive are bound by it.
    I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. - Rothbard

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - Orwell

    Sometimes it's said that man cannot be trusted with government of himself. Can he then be trusted with government of others? - Jefferson
    Reply With Quote

  29. #59
    I Am Teh Lolrus stealth_swimmer's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2006
    Location: Texas: swimming in a way that you can't detect...
    Age: 26
    Stats: 5'6", 193 lbs
    Posts: 50,991
    BodyPoints: 47972
    Rep Power: 16272
    stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000) stealth_swimmer has reached the pinnacle! Best possible rank! (+1000000)
    Visit stealth_swimmer's BodySpace
    stealth_swimmer is offline
    to answer the question posed by the thread title: No, it's not.
    "...that's the great virtue of the free market, of the private market. It enables people...who hate one another...who don't speak the same language...who would fight one another if they had the chance, to cooperate economically. We were able to deal with China when China was a communist state. Even though we thought that that was a terrible arrangement, we could still cooperate. And that's what markets enable people to do. They bring freedom with them."
    - Milton Friedman
    Reply With Quote

  30. #60
    Banned nonAtlas's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Stats: 6'5", 313 lbs
    Posts: 10,965
    BodyPoints: 11538
    Rep Power: 0
    nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nonAtlas has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Visit nonAtlas's BodySpace
    nonAtlas is offline
    Originally Posted by Stizzel
    At the beginning of Jefferson's presidency, the Supreme Court ruled that it has the authority to interpret the constitution through judicial review.

    I not only disagree with this, I feel it is entirely contrary to the concept of a limited, checked and balanced government intended by the founders.

    Here are my arguments:

    1) This authority is not granted to the supreme court anywhere in the constitution. If the constitution really is the ultimate law of the land, that means the supreme court's interpretations are not legal.

    2) It is obvious that the founders intended the people to rule this country through the constitution rather than allow ultimate, unquestionable authority to reside in the hands of 9 members of one branch of the federal government.

    3) I see no source granting the Supreme Court the authority to grant itself power not explicitly stated in the constitution.

    Your thoughts?


    Your point 1) is exactly right, and I have been saying this around here forever. They can't appoint themselves authority that doesn't exist in the Constitution, because it doesn't give them the authority to do such a thing. So they are taking unto themselves the fictional authority to authorize themselves to do a particular thing that the Founders never provided. The court has authority only to ensure that the law is obeyed, and then only when the law is in strict adherence to the Constitution. All else is illegal.

    Reply With Quote

Reply
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Home Store Products Careers Help Contact Us Terms of Use Checkout