Mmmmmm .... nu uh. Sorry to be picky, but it's vital. Every precedent they look to are Constitution-based decisions made on subjects similar to the case at hand; they are the means the SCOTUS uses to help make the decisions, but the final decisions still have to be firmly based on the Constitution and the Constitution only. The precedents have no value in and of themselves.The supreme court doesn't only look to the constitution to determine if something is constitutional. They also look to precedent which holds as much weight as the constitution itself.
Mmmmmm .... nu uh. Sorry to be picky, but it's vital. Every precedent they look to are Constitution-based decisions made on subjects similar to the case at hand; they are the means the SCOTUS uses to help make the decisions, but the final decisions still have to be firmly based on the Constitution and the Constitution only. The precedents have no value in and of themselves.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.
And you are obviously a homophobic bigot.
You trying to "defend" the word marriage is as transparent as it gets.
Marriage was meant for man and woman...pretty simple.
I dont care if people are gay....makes no difference to me.
If they want the same rights...then go for it..them give them those same right...but not under the name "marriage"
Call it bonded or whatever.
.
Your dishonesty is showing again...quite the pattern you have Tim...You continue to paint yourself as the forum liar.
Here is what I said below.
Case law can be declared unconstitutional (overturned by a successor court). The Constitution cannot.Precedent is more than just information used to help make decisions. Precedent is the law of the land as much as the constitution. One does not hold more weight than the other.
And there you've supported my point. You acknowledge that the Constitution trumps case law.This is why decisions of the SCOTUS are so important. Prior precedent is almost never overturned by later courts and the only other way to change it is by constitutional amendment.
Maybe he's afraid someone will mistake him for being gay.So what does it matter to YOU if they are married or it's a civil union? Does the definition of a word matter to you that much?
Case law can be declared unconstitutional (overturned by a successor court). The Constitution cannot.
And there you've supported my point. You acknowledge that the Constitution trumps case law.
I doesn't, and you stated as much yourself. It doesn't negate anything else you've said. It's simple fact.Precedent carries the same weight of law as does the constitution.
I doesn't, and you stated as much yourself. It doesn't negate anything else you've said. It's simple fact.
Correct, as I said before.Do you honestly believe that supreme court decisions do not carry the full weight of the law?
Of course they do. As does the constitution.
Both are considered the absolute law of the land. Only the supreme court can overrule precedent which is almost never done
Incorrect; it's way more complex than that.and only congress can change the constitution
SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Their interpretations become case law. Subsequent (there's the word I blanked on earlierwhich is almost never done. But unless such changes are made, they both carry the same weight.
Incorrect; it's way more complex than that.
Which brings up the question: Is our amendment system too complex? It's certainly a factor in legislators trying to creatively interpret what they thought maybe the authors might have meant, rather than just passing an amendment to make things more clear.Correct, I was keeping it simple.
There are 4 ways to amend the constitution, one of which is where 2/3 rds of the legislator pass a bill that is sent to the state legislators to ratify. This is how most amendments were passed.
My point was that neither are easy paths.
Which brings up the question: Is our amendment system too complex? It's certainly a factor in legislators trying to creatively interpret what they thought maybe the authors might have meant, rather than just passing an amendment to make things more clear.
Which brings up the question: Is our amendment system too complex? It's certainly a factor in legislators trying to creatively interpret what they thought maybe the authors might have meant, rather than just passing an amendment to make things more clear.
I love how the gay marriage post turned into a checks and balances debate....LOL, and it has been easy to read, and very good arguments without certain monkeys throwing bizarre wrenches into it!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.