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 6:05 pm

BillMarti wrote:What branch of the government has the POWER to make laws-Congress.


& since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has the authority to throw any law out as unconstitutional.
Look Mike.....Marbury v Madison has already been decided & I suggest that, since you obviously don't agree with it, you take the case back to the SCOTUS.
I would also suggest that you may want to argue some of the laws of physics that Sir Isaac Newton imposes on us! (I don;'t like gravity...so let's repeal it!)
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 6:32 pm

Devil,

Sorry your wrong again NOTHING BUT NOTHING SUPERSEDES THE CONSTITUTIONS AUTHORITY you can think what you want but facts are facts THE CONSTITUTION was written before anything you can refer to and it stands and always has the last say. I must have went to a different school than you because all laws are based on the CONSTITUTION.

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: ErikLaurence On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:31 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:
Devil505 wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:Marbury made the case that SCOTUS has judicial review . It doesn't allow the courts to re-write the law, nor interpret the law in a way in which the law was not intended. Don't get too excited, Dev. It doesn't give the courts the right to deny the second amendment rights to citizens by eliminating ammunition because that effectively infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no point to a gun that has no ammo.


You are not a lawyer & have probably never taken a course in Constitutional Law. What Marbury v Madison means is that ANYTHING the SCOTUS decides is the FINAL WORD on the subject! (Finito....End of Discussion......CYA)
There is no higher authority to appeal to. Like I said above:
Devil505 wrote:if the SCOTUS said that all underwear must be worn OUTSIDE of your pants, that would be both Constitutional & enforceable by the police.


If you don't believe me, call any law school in the country.
mikeandgerry wrote:The courts must review in a mannor prescribed by law and Marbury.


The SCOTUS is not subject to any kind of review...PERIOD!


Except the review of a future court. Obviously, the founders didn't intend a ping-pong match.

I don't need to be a lawyer to understand English. You and your twisted friends in government don't have the right to redefine the language.

Get real.


Does the phrase "stare decisis" mean anything to you? Courts cannot willy-nilly reverse one another.

If you don't like the supreme court you are welcome to convene a constitutional convention of try to amend the Constitution under article V.
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket


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

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:42 pm

Devil505 wrote:& since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has the authority to throw any law out as unconstitutional.
Look Mike.....Marbury v Madison has already been decided & I suggest that, since you obviously don't agree with it, you take the case back to the SCOTUS.
I would also suggest that you may want to argue some of the laws of physics that Sir Isaac Newton imposes on us! (I don;'t like gravity...so let's repeal it!)


Marbury was decided one hundred years before the lefties decided to exploit it to destroy laws they couldn't change in the legislature. The lefties read more into Marbury than exists.

The law doesn't provide for a redefinition of the word "infringed" by the SCOTUS nor does it mean that SCOTUS can render the constitution unconstitutional .

:hammer:
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

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

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:58 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:Does the phrase "stare decisis" mean anything to you? Courts cannot willy-nilly reverse one another.

If you don't like the supreme court you are welcome to convene a constitutional convention of try to amend the Constitution under article V.


Except the SCOTUS. They are the highest court. They are not bound by stare decisis though they attempt to adhere to it unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Secondly, this is not common law. This is a constitutional matter.

I stated that a ping pong match is not desirable. The effect of court rulings, like those Devil is suggesting, would hold that the second amendment didn't grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Such a holding would induce a ping pong match. And that is the strategy of the left. The SCOTUS cannot undo the constitution for political reasons. If they do, they breach their fiduciary responsibility. Then their rulings would be subject to reversal. The lefties want to destroy the constancy of the constitution, their actions toward that end are clear.

I would like to see the lefties directly challenge the second amendment rather than this incessent nibbling away at it. It is an insult to the rule of law.
Last edited by mikeandgerry on Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:02 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 9:01 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:Marbury was decided one hundred years before the lefties decided to exploit it to destroy laws they couldn't change in the legislature. The lefties read more into Marbury than exists.

The law doesn't provide for a redefinition of the word "infringed" by the SCOTUS nor does it mean that SCOTUS can render the constitution unconstitutional .


Look Mike...I know Stockinbgful has made this point to you but you are making a fool of yourself. ANYONE who understands Constitutional Law would not argude the FACT that the U.S. Supreme Court is the FINAL, DECISIVE & INCONTROVERTIBLE LAST WORD on the constitutionality or (lack thereof) of ANY law passed by Congress or ANY action taken by the Executive Branch .....PERIOD...FULL STOP....END Of DISCUSSION!!
The fact that you obviously don't agree with the decision (Marbury v Madison) means nothing & you sound like a fool arguing something that is just fantasy.
I'll say it one more time: The Law is what the SCOTUS says it is & THE Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it rmeans!
Last edited by Devil505 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 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: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:03 pm

Devil505 wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:Marbury was decided one hundred years before the lefties decided to exploit it to destroy laws they couldn't change in the legislature. The lefties read more into Marbury than exists.

The law doesn't provide for a redefinition of the word "infringed" by the SCOTUS nor does it mean that SCOTUS can render the constitution unconstitutional .


Look Mike...I know Stockinbgful has made this point to you but you are making a fool of yourself. ANYONE who understands Constitutional Law would not argude the FACT that the U.S. Supreme Court is the FINAL, DECISIVE & INCONTROVERTIBLE LAST WORD on the constitutionality or (lack thereof) of ANY law passed by Congress or ANY action taken by the Executive Branch .....PERIOD...FULL STOP....END Of DISCUSSION!!
Thde fact that you don't agree with the decision (Marbury v Madison) means nothing & you sound like a fool arguing something that is just fantasy.
I'll say it one more time: The Law is what the SCOTUS says it is & THE Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it rmeans!


You are making an ass of yourself declaring that the SCOTUS can declare the constitution unconstitutional.

That would render the constitution toilet paper. It would make it subject to political whim.

It makes no bloody sense, you fool.
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 9:11 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:You are making an ass of yourself declaring that the SCOTUS can declare the constitution unconstitutional.

That would render the constitution toilet paper. It would make it subject to political whim.

It makes no bloody sense, you fool.


Look....This is not Flame Central so the personal attacks are in the wrong forum. You & I both know I never said your bs line that ...."the SCOTUS can declare the constitution unconstitutional".....What does that mean, anyway??? What I said was the incontrovertible FACT that the SCOTUS can declare any LAW (passed by Congress) or any action (taken by the President) to be unconstitutional & therefore null & void!
Don't try to twist my words or meaning with your silly interpretations of them. Stop pontificating on subjects that you obviously don't understand & call a few law schools.
Why would you defend an erroneous position so vehemently???
Last edited by Devil505 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:13 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: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:12 pm

Devil505 wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:You are making an ass of yourself declaring that the SCOTUS can declare the constitution unconstitutional.

That would render the constitution toilet paper. It would make it subject to political whim.

It makes no bloody sense, you fool.


Look....This is not Flame Central so the personal attacks are in the wrong forum. You & I both know I never said your bs line that ...."the SCOTUS can declare the constitution unconstitutional".....What does that mean, anyway??? What I said was the incontrovertible FACT that the SCOTUS can declare any LAW (passed by Congress) or any action (taken by the President) to be unconstitutional & therefore null & void!
Don't try to twist my words or meaning with your silly interpretations of them. Stop pontificating on subject that you obviously don't understand & call a few law schools.


So why did you start characterizing me as a fool? Read back.

Then read back this:

Report this postReply with quoteRe: Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers
By: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:19 pm

jpete wrote:
Which part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand when you took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend"?

Silly question.. "shall not be infringed".....is a strictly subjective phrase open to the interpretation of the decision maker. What YOU may consider "Infringement" others view as reasonable & even necessary for a society to be orderly & functionable.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

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

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:14 pm

I know what I said. You don't seem to remember what you said.

I know what Marbury means for common law.

You don't understand that it doens't apply to constitutional law.
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 9:16 pm

OK...This is why it;'s pointless to debate with you Mike. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. You never do because you evidently are incapable of ever being in error. As HAL9000 said...."This conversation can have no further useful purpose."
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 9:18 pm

Did you or did you not characterize me as a fool?
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

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

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:20 pm

Did you, or did you not, say or imply that Marbury allows the SCOTUS to decide what "infringed" means in the Constitution?
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 9:20 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:I know what I said. You don't seem to remember what you said.

I know what Marbury means for common law.

You don't understand that it doens't apply to constitutional law.


I just couldn't let this ridiculous statement go.......So now we're differentiating between Common Law & Constitutional Law & claiming Marbury v Madison doesn't apply to ALL law????
You are doing what you do best.....trying to cover your error with a verbal "Smoke Screen" of BS & lead to a totally different argument. We'll let real lawyers look at this interplay & decide which one of us is right.
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 9:22 pm

What if the SCOTUS decided that "infringed" meant "allowed"?

Does that become the law of the land without question forever and ever?

Is that what the Founders or Marbury intended?
Last edited by mikeandgerry on Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M