For Constitutionalists Only!

[BasicGreatGuy]

As if blind stare decisis wasn't bad enough of a judicial problem, we have to contend with the judicial branch wanting to incorporate powers to itself that it isn't supposed to have in the first place. How in the world is their proper adjudication of the law with those two aspects at play?

I don't see how some people can be so laissez faire about it.

 

[Arawyn]

I seriously wonder though, if a Constitutional Amendment, once in it, can ever be seriously considered unConstitutional.

And, like I said earlier, I'm not even sure SCOTUS would have the "authority" to determine an amendments Constiutionality......SCOTUS can only rule on laws outside of the Constitution, as far as I'm aware.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Consensus appears to be precedent / stare decisis holds and this may not be perfect law, none are, but it worked and works.

I still want to know why anyone would want to repeal it? What is the goal of the appeal? What is it you want to change?

Stari Decisis legal definition of Stari Decisis. Stari Decisis synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Good God Damn, I am gonna die. I actually agree with something the board Communist posted.

There is only one result of repelling the 14th, the lose of the Civil Rights act and numerous other Laws that rest solely on it as a foundation. The return to States violating the Constitution at will claiming it is none of the Federal Governments Business.

While I agree the Federal Government has usurped numerous things from States and the Individual THIS is not the answer. Repelling the 14th or invalidating it would be criminally negligent. It was lawfully passed since the Southern States Governments that voted against it were still the rebellious Governments and had no right to Govern to begin with.

Well since they were still rebellious and had no right to govern to begin with, would you say that their ratification of the 13th Amendment is illegitimate?

No because such ratification did not depend on their vote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So using the Constitution to ensure that every State has a certain type of Government is all right? Since it does do that. The Bill of rights is specifically designed to protect the rights of States and Citizens. It can do neither if it does not pertain to the States.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I seriously wonder though, if a Constitutional Amendment, once in it, can ever be seriously considered unConstitutional.

And, like I said earlier, I'm not even sure SCOTUS would have the "authority" to determine an amendments Constiutionality......SCOTUS can only rule on laws outside of the Constitution, as far as I'm aware.

Article III, Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

So using the Constitution to ensure that every State has a certain type of Government is all right? Since it does do that. The Bill of rights is specifically designed to protect the rights of States and Citizens. It can do neither if it does not pertain to the States.

What in the world are you talking about?

Article IV, Section 4 : "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

If the Bill of Rights are incorporated, it removes the rightful power per the federal and state Constitutions of the respective states, to legally attend matters involving such as they see fit. That is not good. That is judicial activism.

 

[Arawyn]

I seriously wonder though, if a Constitutional Amendment, once in it, can ever be seriously considered unConstitutional.

And, like I said earlier, I'm not even sure SCOTUS would have the "authority" to determine an amendments Constiutionality......SCOTUS can only rule on laws outside of the Constitution, as far as I'm aware.

Article III, Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Yes but, as in Section 2 *bolded* under the Constitution, not IN the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

I seriously wonder though, if a Constitutional Amendment, once in it, can ever be seriously considered unConstitutional.

And, like I said earlier, I'm not even sure SCOTUS would have the "authority" to determine an amendments Constiutionality......SCOTUS can only rule on laws outside of the Constitution, as far as I'm aware.

The Supreme Court would not be able to ascertain the constitutionality of an amendment... as an amendment is automatically "constitutional".What it could review is whether it was propertly ratified or its passage complied with the law as it existed.

people think their rights are etched in stone... they exist only so far as the constitution applies and to the extent they are enforced.

 

[Arawyn]

I seriously wonder though, if a Constitutional Amendment, once in it, can ever be seriously considered unConstitutional.

And, like I said earlier, I'm not even sure SCOTUS would have the "authority" to determine an amendments Constiutionality......SCOTUS can only rule on laws outside of the Constitution, as far as I'm aware.

The Supreme Court would not be able to ascertain the constitutionality of an amendment... as an amendment is automatically "constitutional".What it could review is whether it was propertly ratified or its passage complied with the law as it existed.

people think their rights are etched in stone... they exist only so far as the constitution applies and to the extent they are enforced.

That's my impression as well.......and I'm as a bratty con as the day is long.....LOL

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So using the Constitution to ensure that every State has a certain type of Government is all right? Since it does do that. The Bill of rights is specifically designed to protect the rights of States and Citizens. It can do neither if it does not pertain to the States.

What in the world are you talking about?

Article IV, Section 4 : "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

If the Bill of Rights are incorporated, it removes the rightful power per the federal and state Constitutions of the respective states, to legally attend matters involving such as they see fit. That is not good. That is judicial activism.

The Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land. As stated in the Constitution. And they further State that those powers not delegated to the Federal Government may rest with the States and the people. The Constitution is supreme. IT SHOULD and DOES restrict the States. The Bill of rights and the rest of the Amendments all became part of the Constitution on Ratification.

The Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th amendments are all useless if the States can simply IGNORE them. Further the 14th CLEARLY gives to the Federal Government the right to INCORPORATE the rest of the Constitution , ie , the amendments, to be Supreme over the States.

But back to the most important question. EXACTLY which Bill of Rights amendments do you find troubling if applied to the States? Be specific.

Further I argue that the Bill of Rights applied to the States with out the 14th. The Bill of Rights are protections granted the States and the People by the Superior Government, the Federal Power. They already grant powers to the Federal Government over the States even without the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically states the purpose of the Amendment is to make a promise to the States and the People, the right to always be able to be armed and to maintain militias. The rest of them provide specific protections and promises again to the People and the States. For example the Federal Government can not house troops without permission in homes. Absolutely meaningless if it does not apply directly to the States.

The 9th and 10th Amendments specifically mention the States. If the Bill of rights did not pertain to the States at all, how exactly would such an amendment grant any promise or power to the States or the People?

The 4th and 5th amendments are absolutely meaningless if the States can simply ignore them and compel their citizens to testify against themselves or allow unrestricted searches and seizures.

 

[jillian]

That's my impression as well.......and I'm as a bratty con as the day is long.....LOL

heh... glad we agree.

 

[Arawyn]

That's my impression as well.......and I'm as a bratty con as the day is long.....LOL

heh... glad we agree.

LOL, OMG, run for the hills, a con and (from what I've seen) a lib agree.....

Armageddon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

If the Bill of Rights are incorporated, it removes the rightful power per the federal and state Constitutions of the respective states, to legally attend matters involving such as they see fit. That is not good. That is judicial activism.

the constitution is always superior to state law... including each state's constitution. As was already pointed out to you, this results from the supremacy clause. A state may grant more rights than the U.S. Constitution, it can never provide fewer protections. states determine other matters such as status (legal marriage/age of consent, etc) which determinations are given full faith and credit. the highest court of each state also makes all final determinations as to election law questions (well, except for Bush v Gore).

That's very well settled, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. That has nothing to do with judicial activism and is appropriate constitutional construction.

I wish people would stop tossing around words like judicial activism.

 

[jillian]

That's my impression as well.......and I'm as a bratty con as the day is long.....LOL

heh... glad we agree.

LOL, OMG, run for the hills, a con and (from what I've seen) a lib agree.....

Armageddon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damn... and here i thought hell froze over. RAFLMAO!

 

[Arawyn]

heh... glad we agree.

LOL, OMG, run for the hills, a con and (from what I've seen) a lib agree.....

Armageddon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damn... and here i thought hell froze over. RAFLMAO!

I am feeling a little cold.....

 

[jillian]

LOL, OMG, run for the hills, a con and (from what I've seen) a lib agree.....

Armageddon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damn... and here i thought hell froze over. RAFLMAO!

I am feeling a little cold.....

maybe it will fix global warming.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If the Bill of Rights are incorporated, it removes the rightful power per the federal and state Constitutions of the respective states, to legally attend matters involving such as they see fit. That is not good. That is judicial activism.

the constitution is always superior to state law... including each state's constitution. As was already pointed out to you, this results from the supremacy clause. A state may grant more rights than the U.S. Constitution, it can never provide fewer protections. states determine other matters such as status (legal marriage/age of consent, etc) which determinations are given full faith and credit. the highest court of each state also makes all final determinations as to election law questions (well, except for Bush v Gore).

That's very well settled, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. That has nothing to do with judicial activism and is appropriate constitutional construction.

I wish you people would stop tossing around words like judicial activism when you don't know what the term means.

What is this "you people" crap? You don't know me. Don't presume to think you can lump me in with whatever group you are talking about. I am my own person. I know the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I have not said otherwise in this thread. I have not even hinted of such. Why did you feel a need to tell me that?

 

[Arawyn]

damn... and here i thought hell froze over. RAFLMAO!

I am feeling a little cold.....

maybe it will fix global warming.

ROFLMAO.......wait, one problem though.......what do we do about the resulting global freeze? :think:

 

[jillian]

I am feeling a little cold.....

maybe it will fix global warming.

ROFLMAO.......wait, one problem though.......what do we do about the resulting global freeze? :think:

burn carbon based fuels?

oh no!!! it's a vicious cycle!!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

So using the Constitution to ensure that every State has a certain type of Government is all right? Since it does do that. The Bill of rights is specifically designed to protect the rights of States and Citizens. It can do neither if it does not pertain to the States.

What in the world are you talking about?

Article IV, Section 4 : "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

If the Bill of Rights are incorporated, it removes the rightful power per the federal and state Constitutions of the respective states, to legally attend matters involving such as they see fit. That is not good. That is judicial activism.

The Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land. As stated in the Constitution. And they further State that those powers not delegated to the Federal Government may rest with the States and the people. The Constitution is supreme. IT SHOULD and DOES restrict the States. The Bill of rights and the rest of the Amendments all became part of the Constitution on Ratification.

The Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th amendments are all useless if the States can simply IGNORE them. Further the 14th CLEARLY gives to the Federal Government the right to INCORPORATE the rest of the Constitution , ie , the amendments, to be Supreme over the States.

But back to the most important question. EXACTLY which Bill of Rights amendments do you find troubling if applied to the States? Be specific.

Further I argue that the Bill of Rights applied to the States with out the 14th. The Bill of Rights are protections granted the States and the People by the Superior Government, the Federal Power. They already grant powers to the Federal Government over the States even without the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically states the purpose of the Amendment is to make a promise to the States and the People, the right to always be able to be armed and to maintain militias. The rest of them provide specific protections and promises again to the People and the States. For example the Federal Government can not house troops without permission in homes. Absolutely meaningless if it does not apply directly to the States.

The 9th and 10th Amendments specifically mention the States. If the Bill of rights did not pertain to the States at all, how exactly would such an amendment grant any promise or power to the States or the People?

The 4th and 5th amendments are absolutely meaningless if the States can simply ignore them and compel their citizens to testify against themselves or allow unrestricted searches and seizures.

Have I stated somewhere in my posting, that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land? No, I have not. So, there is no real point in posting that to me, when I have not argued that position.

I already gave an example dealing with the II Amendment. I haven't said anything about states ignoring whatever laws they want to.

You are reading things into my posts I haven't said Gunny. If that is because I haven't been as concise as I need to be, let me know and I will clarify my position(s) for you.

Do we agree that the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government, and not the individual states? That is what I have been saying. The Bill of Rights were not written to be incorporated. None of the supporting founding documents support that kind of position.

In my opinion, the XIV Amendment had nothing to do with incorporation. That is the position I have been debating.