01-18-2013 11:16 AM
01-18-2013 11:54 AM
mauser wrote:
When your rights are what the government says they are, you have no rights.
You have government granted privileges.
If you're ok with that, then may your chains rest lightly upon you.
Yes, I saw that George Carlin bit too
01-18-2013 11:56 AM
yanktar wrote:I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this. Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.
It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision. And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration. But it's not law, it's something distinctly different. The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not. When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic. Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.
01-18-2013 12:01 PM
yanktar wrote:The big RWN phony about the SCOTUS making laws, which of course, you're OK with as long as it's the Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Kennedy/Roberts arm that's doing it. Otherwise you are deliberately garbling what I'm saying: which is that Constitutionality must be decided somewhere, and that somewhere is the SCOTUS. FDR was horribly frustrated when they knocked down so much of the New Deal, but he didn't park the army at the courthouse. He abided by it and tried to get around it. Nixon abided by it. The WHOLE NATION abided by it when it picke the loser as President in 2000. The "silly" one is you, who refuses to recognize 200 years of legal precedent.
I should respond to this - yes, I agree with "must be decided somewhere" and if we agree that SCOTUS is the final word, ok, that's what I mean by "binding arbitration". I just don't agree that this has the status of law, and I think Congress should take back it's proper role as the reprentatives of the people (Instead of the body that hands out favors to rich contributors)
But the court HAS made law, no two ways about it. Roe v Wade is an egregious example. Have you ever read the decision? I mean, they went so far as to make up dates when you can have an abortion and when you can't. They wrote law, no two ways about it, and it was wrong to do so.
01-18-2013 02:06 PM
Everyone wants democracy extended to themselves .....then no further
Phil
01-18-2013 03:37 PM
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
yanktar wrote:I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this. Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.
It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision. And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration. But it's not law, it's something distinctly different. The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not. When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic. Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.
Markoh, you are a hopeless fool who doesn't realize you keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
Without judicial review you have no checks and balances, a KEY element of the Founding Fathers.
Judicial review and precedent is just as much part of the body of law as the law itself. Without judicial review every small town cop can say "I AM the Law" and actually be correct. He can be arbitrary. He can be cruel. He can be dishonest. He can blatantly violate your rights. ONLY judicial review gives YOU, the individual, the right to fight back. Otherwise, government officials not only write the laws, they decide WHAT those laws mean, and, funny thing, it always means EXACTLY what benefits them most.
Only judicial review controls that, is the check and balance. It's one of the BETTER things we got from Mother England.
Your dislike with Roe v Wade (criticised for things other decisions are OK with) has led you to justify tossing out the baby with the bath water.
Thankfully, America is safe from your bizarre twisted judicial thinking.
01-18-2013 03:40 PM
01-18-2013 03:45 PM
01-18-2013 03:59 PM
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
yanktar wrote:I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this. Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.
It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision. And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration. But it's not law, it's something distinctly different. The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not. When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic. Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.
in the common law system, court decisions are law
and last time I looked, the US doesn't operate under a civil law system
01-18-2013 04:20 PM
Bowe wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
yanktar wrote:I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this. Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.
It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision. And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration. But it's not law, it's something distinctly different. The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not. When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic. Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.
in the common law system, court decisions are law
and last time I looked, the US doesn't operate under a civil law system
Look again. Legal Precedent is crucial to our legal system.
01-18-2013 04:25 PM
yanktar wrote:
Bowe wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
yanktar wrote:I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this. Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.
It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision. And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration. But it's not law, it's something distinctly different. The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not. When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic. Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.
in the common law system, court decisions are law
and last time I looked, the US doesn't operate under a civil law system
Look again. Legal Precedent is crucial to our legal system.
I know, which is why I said that the US doesn't operate under the civil law system
01-18-2013 04:37 PM
01-18-2013 04:39 PM
01-18-2013 07:19 PM
Because his job description calls for putting himself into situations that you would never willingly put yourself into.
01-19-2013 03:47 AM
01-19-2013 03:49 AM
01-19-2013 03:52 AM
01-19-2013 04:03 AM
01-19-2013 05:15 AM
mauser wrote:
Booker: The people in Somalia have the freedom of speech too.
Unfortunately, their government doesn't respect their rights and the people are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
Hopefully that'll never happen here, but we've apparently learned little from Bush and his running roughshod over the Constitution in the names of keeping us "safe" from boogeymen.
wow just found the quote tag.
looks like many in our society don't care for the Constitution and want a newly interpreted one.
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC