Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:22 pm

No more verbal BS.....Provide links proving that someone or something has power, other than the SCOTUS, to say what the constitution means. Put up or shut up!
Last edited by Devil505 on Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: BillMarti On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:24 pm

It doesn't matter one house can not usurp the anothers authority. But 2 houses can by law go against 1. So the supreme court does not have the final authority period. You really don't know how the government is supposed to work do you devil? I do remember what I was taught before they dummed education down.

Bill S.
BillMarti
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Coal Size/Type: Rice
Stove/Furnace Make: EFM 520, 1980
Stove/Furnace Model: 520

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:25 pm

BillMarti wrote:It doesn't matter one house can not usurp the anothers authority. But 2 houses can by law go against 1. So the supreme court does not have the final authority period. You really don't know how the government is supposed to work do you devil? I do remember what I was taught before they dummed education down.

Bill S.


You couldn't be more wrong if you tried....First of all, what is this "House" crap???..... It is BRANCH & ONLY the judicial branch can overrule the other branches...not vice versa......& where on earth did you come up this total BS:..." But 2 houses can by law go against 1."???....(this is the BS that really aggravates your debate opponents, when you try to "Con" us with things you just make up & claim they have some basis in reality. It really is a personality flaw Mike & makes the rest of your statements suspect & less credible) Advice: Don't try to argue advanced physics with a physicist or Heart surgery with a heart surgeon!

Bottom line is this:..... NO ONE CAN OVERRULE THE SCOTUS except the SCOTUS itself at a later date or a formal amendment to the Constitution itself, passed by Congress & ratified by the states.
Last edited by Devil505 on Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:33 am, edited 9 times in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000


Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: BillMarti On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:26 pm

]It doesn't matter one house can not usurp the anothers authority. But 2 houses can by law go against 1it's called checks a balances. So the supreme court does not have the final authority period. You really don't know how the government is supposed to work do you devil? I do remember what I was taught before they dummed education down.

Bill S.
BillMarti
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Coal Size/Type: Rice
Stove/Furnace Make: EFM 520, 1980
Stove/Furnace Model: 520

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: jpete On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:28 pm

Devil505 wrote:Argue with this:



OK.....

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8432/Marbury-v-Madison.html

However, Marshall suggested that merely because a piece of legislation violates a constitutional principle does not necessarily mean that the legislation is unenforceable. "[W]hether an act repugnant to the constitution can become law of the land," Marshall noted, "is a question deeply interesting to the United States." Observing that the Constitution expressly delegates and limits the powers of Congress, Marshall asked, "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"

Marshall argued that the "distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." Marshall continued:

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act…. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it… . If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

For Marshall, the idea that an unconstitutional act of legislature could "bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect" was "an absurdity too gross to be insisted on." Thus, Marshall concluded that congressional legislation contrary to the federal Constitution is null and void and cannot be enforced by a court of law.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:29 pm

BillMarti wrote:But 2 houses can by law go against 1it's called checks a balances. So the supreme court does not have the final authority period.


So...If the President & Congress decide the SCOTUS is wrong, together they can overrule a SCOTUS decision??
(let me have a hit of what you're smoking tonight)
If that was true, Since the Democrats now control 2 of the 3 branches of government (Legislative & Executive) they would obviously overrule the SCOTUS decision in Bush v Gore, right? (They cant. Only the SCOTUS itself could overrule that decision)

You have no clue how our government works.....I've provided plenty of links PROVING my argument...You have nothing...because you are just wrong, period.
Last edited by Devil505 on Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:13 am, edited 4 times in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:30 pm

jpete wrote:Thus, Marshall concluded that congressional legislation contrary to the federal Constitution is null and void and cannot be enforced by a court of law.


You're proving my point!
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: BillMarti On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:31 pm

Devil,
I can see by your response you know I'm correct because you always ask for a link and then you go on about how it's somebody elses interpretation. You are a sore loser as usual.

Bill S.
BillMarti
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Coal Size/Type: Rice
Stove/Furnace Make: EFM 520, 1980
Stove/Furnace Model: 520

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:34 pm

BillMarti wrote:Devil,
I can see by your response you know I'm correct because you always ask for a link and then you go on about how it's somebody elses interpretation. You are a sore loser as usual.

Bill S.



Diarrhea.....Where are some links to prove you're right?
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:37 pm

I'll end my participation in this silly fantasy world by asking a very simple question: If the SCOTUS does not have final authority to interpret what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.....Who Does?
(ie who settled the case of what this 2nd amendment sentence meant?..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
Last edited by Devil505 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: jpete On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:38 pm

Devil505 wrote:
jpete wrote:Thus, Marshall concluded that congressional legislation contrary to the federal Constitution is null and void and cannot be enforced by a court of law.


You're proving my point!


No, I'm pretty sure I'm not. I never said that the court doesn't have judicial review. I said that the SCOTUS can't decide what the law "is". The Constitution is what it is. When to SCOTUS sides with the Constitution, they are right, when they rule against it, they are wrong.

And when they are wrong, the executive and legislative branches should not enforce the decision.

President ANDREW JACKSON once underscored this point when he exclaimed, "John Marshall has made his decision [in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 8 L. Ed. 483 (1832)], now let him enforce it!"
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: BillMarti On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:40 pm

Well I'm going to bed but I think it is a shame that people can be so deceived by false beliefs and refuse to deal with facts even our forefathers tried to avoid by writing things in plain english that all common men could understand. And today these people are so educated they need lawyers to tell them how to interpret the simple english language that they are to foolish to understand. I'm sure glad I payed attention in school when we were taught in simple english.

Good Night
Bill S.
BillMarti
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Coal Size/Type: Rice
Stove/Furnace Make: EFM 520, 1980
Stove/Furnace Model: 520

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:41 pm

Devil505 wrote:
BillMarti wrote:It doesn't matter one house can not usurp the anothers authority. But 2 houses can by law go against 1. So the supreme court does not have the final authority period. You really don't know how the government is supposed to work do you devil? I do remember what I was taught before they dummed education down.

Bill S.


You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Give me a link...not verbal diarrhea.


Devil, your links don't prove your point. In fact, they prove that you are wrong. The constitution cannot be declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The constitution is never unconstitutional.

provide a link where they did.
Last edited by mikeandgerry on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

jpete wrote:No, I'm pretty sure I'm not.

No...You are wrong alright.

jpete wrote:I never said that the court doesn't have judicial review. I said that the SCOTUS can't decide what the law "is".


That is exactly what judicial review is! (you need to do some research...Just read the links I posted)

jpete wrote:When to SCOTUS sides with the Constitution, they are right, when they rule against it, they are wrong.

What the SCOTUS decides IS THE CONSTITUTION as far as U.S. law is concerned...That's what I've been saying for an hour! (for purposes of U.S. law, the SCOTUS can never decide against the Constitutioin because their decisions ARE THE CONSTITUTION!

Constitutional doesn't necessarily mean right or fair either....It just means that whatever their decision, it is the supreme law of the land...unless/until it is overruled by another SCOTUS decision or Constitutional amendment.
Example:

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.

That crazy/immoral/ridiculous (use your own adjective) decision was the supreme law of the land until:

Dred Scott was indirectly overruled in the Slaughter-House Cases, which noted that Dred Scott's holding was superseded by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which guaranteed full rights and citizenship regardless of race. Though it is sometimes said that Dred Scott was never officially overruled, the Slaughter-House Cases did note that the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment (and thus enacted after the Dred Scott case) had overruled it, although the Court was merely noting the fact that Dred Scott had already been overruled by the amendment; it was not the Court that overruled Dred Scott, but Congress and the states:
Last edited by Devil505 on Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Devil505 wrote:I'll end my participation in this silly fantasy world by asking a very simple question: If the SCOTUS does not have final authority to interpret what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.....Who Does?
(ie who settled the case of what this 2nd amendment sentence meant?..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")


Devil, the SCOTUS can interpret the constitution but only to clarify the will of the people. They haven't got much latitude. They have to research what the people (and the Founders) meant in the Constitution. As for the rest of the law, they can interpret what the legislature meant but not what they personally want.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M