Supreme Court Defends Righ Of US Citizens To Live On Terrifying Streets

[Minor Axis]

Good God, just when I think you can't say anything else completely ignorant and unintelligent you go and outdo yourself again.

Your outrage overflowith extravagantly. Tim disagrees with your opinion, so do millions of others. Somehow all the things you say should be impossible under the Constitution have been approved. Why don't you just call it a difference of opinion instead of latent name calling? I realize this whole forum thing with the disagreements can be frustrating, but ya got to hold it together man.

 

[retro]

Your outrage overflowith extravagantly. Tim disagrees with your opinion, so do millions of others. Somehow all the things you say should be impossible under the Constitution have been approved. Why don't you just call it a difference of opinion instead of latent name calling? I realize this whole forum thing with the disagreements can be frustrating, but ya got to hold it together man.

I'm serious. If the Constitution is nothing more than a guideline, then that applies to all of the laws in this country. Every law is held up to the Constitution as a litmus, so if the Constitution isn't absolute then nothing else is. So hell, let's bring back some form of legal slavery, prevent black people and women from voting, restrict the free press, take guns away, prevent the 5th Amendment from being invoked, and a whole host of other things. I should be able to go to the store and steal some food, because I "need" it... and stealing is a grey area, right?

If you limit the power of the Constitution, then no laws matter. That is entirely contrary to the founding principles of this country. Excuse me if talking about the Constitution as though it's nothing more than a guideline upsets me. I revere the United States Constitution... it's what gives us the right to meet together, to exchange ideas without fear of the government, to dissent freely without fear of retribution, to vote, to live in this country. To destroy the legitimacy of the Constitution is to destroy the country. But you Democrats are well on their way to doing that anyway.

 

[Accountable]

I agree with Retro. The Constitution is the framework all of our federal laws must remain within. When we start thinking of the Constitution as nothing more than suggestions then we may as well throw it away. Any Americans willing to do that yet?

 

[retro]

God you liberals make me fucking sick to my stomach. It absolutely disgusts me that you're all so willing to throw away the document that this country was freaking founded on.

uke:

 

[Tim]

So wait... the supreme law of this country is nothing more than a guideline? Then hell, let's bring about ways to prevent black people and women from voting. We should be able to do that since the Constitution is only a guideline. Or does this only apply in the case of the 2nd Amendment? Or whatever you think is convenient?

Good God, just when I think you can't say anything else completely ignorant and unintelligent you go and outdo yourself again.

Jesus fucking christ, can you be this thick in the head or do you just play stupid.

The constitution is not absolute and let me give you a few examples.

1. The constitution gives you the right of free speech, period, with no exceptions. Yet it is constitutional to restrict your speech in certain circumstances. You can see this in numerous supreme court decisions.
2. The federal government dealing with immigration. The constitution says powers not enumerated to the federal government will be granted to the states, yet there is no mention of immigration in the constitution. Once again, this was determined by the supreme court.
3. The right to vote. No where in the constitution does it grant you the right to vote. There are 5 reasons given where you cannot be denied a vote, but nowhere does it explicitly give you the right to vote like it gives you free speech.
4. The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't limit where you can bear them or who is capable of keeping them. Yet there are laws restricting where you can carry, what type of arms and who can keep. These have changes have been deemed constitutional by the supreme court. Again, it's not absolute.

If the constitution is absolute, then why do we need the supreme court to interpret it? And if a case comes before the supreme court on matters of constitutionality, the court not only looks at the text of the constitution, but also precedent set by previous decisions.
The constitution can not be considered absolute if it needs interpretation and restrictions can be placed upon it.

 

[Tim]

I agree with Retro. The Constitution is the framework all of our federal laws must remain within. When we start thinking of the Constitution as nothing more than suggestions then we may as well throw it away. Any Americans willing to do that yet?

Who even hinted that it's just a list of suggestions? But as you just clearly pointed out, it's a framework for all of our laws. And framework is the proper word.
And all of our federal laws are based on the constitution AND precedent.

God you liberals make me fucking sick to my stomach. It absolutely disgusts me that you're all so willing to throw away the document that this country was freaking founded on.

You absolutely love to throw things to the extreme don't you. I'm pointing out the fact that the constitution is not absolute and you interpret that as I think you can just change anything you want. Until you can acknowledge what I am saying and fully comprehend the conversation, you will continue to draw your own bullshit conclusions that aren't correct.

 

[Tim]

I'm serious. If the Constitution is nothing more than a guideline, then that applies to all of the laws in this country.....

I agree with Retro. The Constitution is the framework all of our federal laws must remain within....

You guys aren't even on the same page. One says it's not a guideline and the other does...

 

[retro]

I really wish that people like you would go read the Federalist Papers. The Constitution is not a living document, unless you consider the Amendment process to be "living".

 

[Tim]

I really wish that people like you would go read the Federalist Papers. The Constitution is not a living document, unless you consider the Amendment process to be "living".

I have read them. I also spent an entire semester studying them in 11th grade. The school I went to had some very good classes when it came to American history.

I never said that the constitution is a living document nor do I believe it is, you just assume that I believe that because you take what I say how you want to.

 

[Accountable]

I really wish that people like you would go read the Federalist Papers. The Constitution is not a living document, unless you consider the Amendment process to be "living".

I'm not sure if I posted this here or not. Free Federalist Papers for everybody!
http://manybooks.net/titles/hamiltonaletext98feder10a.html

 

[Accountable]

The constitution is not absolute and let me give you a few examples.

2. The federal government dealing with immigration. The constitution says powers not enumerated to the federal government will be granted to the states, yet there is no mention of immigration in the constitution. Once again, this was determined by the supreme court.

If it's the responsibiilty of the federal gov't it must be addressed int he constitution. I'm gonna read up on this one. Should be fun.

3. The right to vote. No where in the constitution does it grant you the right to vote. There are 5 reasons given where you cannot be denied a vote, but nowhere does it explicitly give you the right to vote like it gives you free speech.

The Constitution gives citizens no rights at all. These rights are endowed by the Creator. The Bill of Rights acknowledges some specific rights by explicitly prohibiting the federal gov't from limiting those rights. Some think it sounds like semantics, but it's at the foundation of our system of liberty.

4. The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't limit where you can bear them or who is capable of keeping them. Yet there are laws restricting where you can carry, what type of arms and who can keep. These have changes have been deemed constitutional by the supreme court. Again, it's not absolute.

You'll get a kick out of this. I've been reading up on this and I've found a couple of sources that say that the constitution limits the federal gov't in certain ways, but not state gov't. Now, I have to read the 14th Amendment again because it changed some things, but technically (according to them) the States can (and did) establish churches. Nothing constitutional stops them from limiting or prohibiting any recognized right.

This is great fodder for classroom discussions, so I'll be reading up on it some more.

 

[BornReady]

the constitution limits the federal gov't in certain ways, but not state gov't. Now, I have to read the 14th Amendment again because it changed some things, but technically (according to them) the States can (and did) establish churches. Nothing constitutional stops them from limiting or prohibiting any recognized right.

So are you saying it would be constitutional if Texas decided to do away with free speech and made it illegal for Texans to join OTZ?

 

[Tim]

If it's the responsibiilty of the federal gov't it must be addressed int he constitution. I'm gonna read up on this one. Should be fun.

Immigration The Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.
There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

source...

So the federal government has power to regulate immigration via the supreme court.

 

[Accountable]

So are you saying it would be constitutional if Texas decided to do away with free speech and made it illegal for Texans to join OTZ?

As I understand it (and it's brand new to me, so I'm still checking) the Federal constitution would have nothing to say about it. It would be up to the Texas constitution and legislature.

 

[Accountable]

source...

So the federal government has power to regulate immigration via the supreme court.

Interesting that it wasn't even decided until 1976, eh?

 

[Tim]

You'll get a kick out of this. I've been reading up on this and I've found a couple of sources that say that the constitution limits the federal gov't in certain ways, but not state gov't. Now, I have to read the 14th Amendment again because it changed some things, but technically (according to them) the States can (and did) establish churches. Nothing constitutional stops them from limiting or prohibiting any recognized right.

This is great fodder for classroom discussions, so I'll be reading up on it some more.

Article 6 directly deals with this.

Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.

 

[Accountable]

ticle VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Too easy. I must've misread the claim.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but framework strikes a chord with me, because framework means latitude as long as it remains within the overall framework as described. The question- is this framework all inclusive or are there situations not addressed?

The issue boils down to does the Constitution have to say you can do something to be able to do it or does it only say in broad terms and concepts what can't be done? This may have been discussed before, but what in the Constitution says that the government can't create a program called Social Security and collect funds for such a purpose?

I'm at a real busy time at work this week, but you guys have gotten me interested in Constitutional limits, along with Retro who is sick with disgust at how the "liberals" are happy to trash the Constitution. If so, that is not a recent occurrence as the offending event (SS) happened 70 years ago. As the Supreme Court is the entity that interprets the Constitution, was there a challenge and how did the Supreme Court rule when the opportunity presented itself? Next week, hopefully I'll be inclined to research a bit.

 

[Accountable]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but framework strikes a chord with me, because framework means latitude as long as it remains within the overall framework as described. The question- is this framework all inclusive or are there situations not addressed?

But the framework is very small. Too many people would rather use it more as a springboard.

The issue boils down to does the Constitution have to say you can do something to be able to do it or does it only say in broad terms and concepts what can't be done? This may have been discussed before, but what in the Constitution says that the government can't create a program called Social Security and collect funds for such a purpose?

It is critically important to understand that the Constitution is not what the government allows us to do, but what We The People allow the government to do. Come to think of it, change "framework" to "corral". I think that might be a more accurate term. The Constitution has to say that the federal gov't can do something, otherwise it is prohibited. I was reading somewhere that debates over a bill used to focus mainly over whether it was constitutional. Nowadays that subject is seldom even brought up.

I'm at a real busy time at work this week, but you guys have gotten me interested in Constitutional limits, along with Retro who is sick with disgust at how the "liberals" are happy to trash the Constitution. If so, that is not a recent occurrence as the offending event (SS) happened 70 years ago. As the Supreme Court is the entity that interprets the Constitution, was there a challenge and how did the Supreme Court rule when the opportunity presented itself? Next week, hopefully I'll be inclined to research a bit.

Should be fun.

 

[BlackCherry]

While admittedly these last 11 pages have been very compelling, I have to admit it completely cracks my shit up that it was inspired by an article in "NewsArse." :24:

Since debates are being launched from the fake news, here is the latest headline from the Onion: Al-Qaeda Calls Off Attack On Nation's Capitol To Spare Life Of 'Twilight' Author

...discuss.



Oh come on...it's funny.