Biden said no Constitutional Amendment is Absolute.

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

 

[Pete7469]

That means no law is absolute. It means political whores are not bound by laws, and if they're branded properly they never face consequences.

 

[Synthaholic]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

 

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

 

[Flash]

Democrats don't know anymore about the Constitution than they know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology or Ethics.

To them the Bill of Rights is an impediment to turning this country into a Socialist shithole.

 

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[Viktor]

Who agrees with him?

Biden is already being sued by 35 states for his stupid executive orders. His gun control crap will end up in court, too.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

 

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occurred when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery in the United States!

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery.

Biden is correct in that any Amendment is subject to Judicial Review. Again, Emancipation by Executive Action did NOT end slavery, Amendment XIII did. These three examples overturned earlier cases that violated various portions of the Constitution.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established the separate but equal doctrine, which was overturned being violative of in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Ed.

Loving v. Virginia (1967) overturned a Virginia Supreme Court decision of a 1924 Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage which was violative of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; 1967.

Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008) made it crystal clear that updating of gun laws had been clarified even before the US had become a nation via common law, and accomplished through Judicial Review.
From Sec III of Heller Decision:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." ~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. ~~

The above should make it clear to any gun enthusiast that Amendment II gun rights are NOT absolutely sacrosanct. And these three examples from three different eras in our nation's history should display to anyone with an IQ above 80 that Judicial Review is necessary as time marches on!

 

[BS Filter]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occurred when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery in the United States!

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery.

Biden is correct in that any Amendment is subject to Judicial Review. Again, Emancipation by Executive Action did NOT end slavery, Amendment XIII did. These three examples overturned earlier cases that violated various portions of the Constitution.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established the separate but equal doctrine, which was overturned being violative of in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Ed.

Loving v. Virginia (1967) overturned a Virginia Supreme Court decision of a 1924 Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage which was violative of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; 1967.

Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008) made it crystal clear that updating of gun laws had been clarified even before the US had become a nation via common law, and accomplished through Judicial Review.
From Sec III of Heller Decision:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." ~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. ~~

The above should make it clear to any gun enthusiast that Amendment II gun rights are NOT absolutely sacrosanct. And these three examples from three different eras in our nation's history should display to anyone with an IQ above 80 that Judicial Review is necessary as time marches on!

Shall not be infringed.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occurred when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery in the United States!

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery.

Biden is correct in that any Amendment is subject to Judicial Review. Again, Emancipation by Executive Action did NOT end slavery, Amendment XIII did. These three examples overturned earlier cases that violated various portions of the Constitution.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established the separate but equal doctrine, which was overturned being violative of in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Ed.

Loving v. Virginia (1967) overturned a Virginia Supreme Court decision of a 1924 Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage which was violative of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; 1967.

Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008) made it crystal clear that updating of gun laws had been clarified even before the US had become a nation via common law, and accomplished through Judicial Review.
From Sec III of Heller Decision:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." ~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. ~~

The above should make it clear to any gun enthusiast that Amendment II gun rights are NOT absolutely sacrosanct. And these three examples from three different eras in our nation's history should display to anyone with an IQ above 80 that Judicial Review is necessary as time marches on!

Shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed.

From Sec III of Heller Decision:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. ~~

If a "thing", such as gun rights, can LAWFULLY BE LIMITED as Justice Scalia noted in Heller above as cited, the word INFRINGED in the amendment, in a legal context, has the meaning the Court has REassigned it. The Court spoke in Heller and in Miller (look it up). Amendment II has not been amended since its adoption, so Judicial Review has changed the amendment's original meaning. And the Framers designed that into the Constitution also.

 

[Viktor]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

The Dred Scott decision did not affirm slavery. It said a Black man had no rights to sue.

 

[Slade3200]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

Some would argue that being employed is a form of slavery

 

[Viktor]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occurred when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery in the United States!

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery.

Biden is correct in that any Amendment is subject to Judicial Review. Again, Emancipation by Executive Action did NOT end slavery, Amendment XIII did. These three examples overturned earlier cases that violated various portions of the Constitution.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established the separate but equal doctrine, which was overturned being violative of in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Ed.

Loving v. Virginia (1967) overturned a Virginia Supreme Court decision of a 1924 Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage which was violative of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; 1967.

Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008) made it crystal clear that updating of gun laws had been clarified even before the US had become a nation via common law, and accomplished through Judicial Review.
From Sec III of Heller Decision:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." ~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. ~~

The above should make it clear to any gun enthusiast that Amendment II gun rights are NOT absolutely sacrosanct. And these three examples from three different eras in our nation's history should display to anyone with an IQ above 80 that Judicial Review is necessary as time marches on!

Shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms cannot be taken away, but that does not mean than we can possess any weapon we want.

 

[Viktor]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

Some would argue that being employed is a form of slavery

No. You can quit any job and move. Slaves cannot do either one.

 

[Viktor]

Who agrees with him?

Well, SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia wrote the same sentiments in his decision in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia. Being a settled legal precedent, one can easily agree with the President on that point. (see Sec. III of decision)

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No such thing as settled law. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery in 1956. That was reversed by a war and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's rather odd and contradictory that in the first place you assert that there is no settled law BUT in the second, you falsely attempt to contrast historical events as the causation which brought the end to slavery. However, you are in error as it was the passage of Amendment XIII which actually ended slavery in these United States. The emancipation by Lincoln's Executive order had no effect on the the legality of slavery nor was the Civil War. That occured when Amendment XIII was ratified ending slavery.

BTW, you really need to understand the principle of stare decisis in reference to "settled law".

"Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system."
~~ Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents. ~~

I understand what you're saying. My point is Biden is full of shit to say that no Amendment is absolute. If what he said is true, then someone could challenge the 13th amendment regarding slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed 20,000 slaves on January 1, 1963 because they were in Union occupied territory.

A constitutional amendment can only be overruled or modified by another amendment.

 

[Slade3200]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

Some would argue that being employed is a form of slavery

No. You can quit any job and move. Slaves cannot do either one.

I wasn’t saying that it’s the exact same thing I said some would consider it a form of slavery... obviously a lesser form. Same can be said about prisoners

 

[Viktor]

Who agrees with him?

Every law scholar in the country.

So it would be okay to disregard that part of the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. Why do you support slavery?

Some would argue that being employed is a form of slavery

No. You can quit any job and move. Slaves cannot do either one.

I wasn’t saying that it’s the exact same thing I said some would consider it a form of slavery... obviously a lesser form. Same can be said about prisoners

YOU ARE CUCKOO