House Democrats Vote To Undermine USSC, Violate Separation of Powers

[OKTexas]

The real issue here is federal pre-emption of state laws.

It is has been a long practice of both Republicans and Democrats to federally pre-empt state laws, and yet you rarely hear any partisans whining about it.

But you can be sure the hack propagandists are counting on the rube herd to be ignorant of these facts.

And who's fault is it that is allowed to stand? The courts have been complicit in the erosion of the Constitution from day one almost. Especially during the FDR admin.

.

 

[g5000]

And who's fault is it that is allowed to stand? The courts have been complicit in the erosion of the Constitution from day one almost. Especially during the FDR admin.

.

Actually, our elected federal representatives have been the most complicit in undermining states' rights.

Both parties are highly paid by special interests to centralize power in as few hands as possible so it is easier to capture.

 

[OKTexas]

It took the Supremes 56 years to overturn Plessy.

Wow, I'm impressed, you found one that took longer. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

Rogers v. Grewal - SCOTUSblog

Malpasso v. Pallozzi - SCOTUSblog

The Supremes refused to review both of those horrible, horrible lower court decisions.

Maryland and New Jersey require a law-abiding citizen to prove they have a need for a gun.

That was rectified by this case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, our elected federal representatives have been the most complicit in undermining states' rights.

Both parties are highly paid by special interests to centralize power in as few hands as possible so it is easier to capture.

Only because the courts allowed it. They are the check on extra-constitutional forays of congress.

.

 

[mamooth]

Whatever it takes...

And we've got another conservative who has never heard of "The Supremacy Clause".

But then, if they've ever looked at the Constitution, they're not conservatives.

 

[easyt65]

And we've got another conservative who has never heard of "The Supremacy Clause".

But then, if they've ever looked at the Constitution, they're not conservatives.

But when the liberals try to re-write or create new law they sure are liberals.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Congress has every right to pass whatever legislation they want to, and it isn't undermining he SCOTUS or violating the separation of powers. The Court never said abortion was illegal, they just said the right to an abortion is not a constitutional right. Which means the states and/or the Congress can write civil laws instead and such laws would preempt state laws. BUT - that law doesn't have a chance in hell of passing the Senate, so no worries. Depending on the political blowback in November, a bipartisan abortion bill might happen next year, but there are quite a few extremists on both ends of the political spectrum that wouldn't vote for it.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to legislate abortion. That was made clear in the Dobbs decision. If you disagree, then please point to where in the constitution the federal government would derive such authority.

 

[g5000]

Only because the courts allowed it. They are the check on extra-constitutional forays of congress.

.

I don't think it is so much "allowed" as no one challenges the multitude of pre-emptions in court.

 

[task0778]

The federal government has no constitutional authority to legislate abortion. That was made clear in the Dobbs decision. If you disagree, then please point to where in the constitution the federal government would derive such authority.

I think you're right, but it would be up to the Court to decide that. Since the Court overturned Roe v Wade, one might assume that Congress has no more authority than did the 1973 Court to legislate abortion. Since I wrote that post I have learned a few things and changed my position.

 

[Flash]

Nowhere did the Supreme Court say that elected politicians could not pass a law at the federal level.

Just like in Germany there was no law that said you couldn't commit genocide.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks for that OPINION. Fact remains that McConnell held the Scalia seat open for a year and THEN nuked the SCOTUS filibuster

 

[Uncensored2008]

And which ten GOP Senators would vote for it?

And there’s every possibility that this activist Court would rule that as unconstitutional

No one said they would ghoul, but they have the legal and Constitutional authority - which the court did not have.

See Congress is the legislature, the court isn't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you sure about that? From what I can tell, Congress is constrained to legislation that fits under one of the functions of the federal gov't in the Constitution, no? As stated in my post #123, upon what constitutional authority can they regulate abortion? They can pass an abortion rights law but would it be constitutional? The Supreme Court just overturned Roe v Wade, saying there's nothing in the Constitution that supports that ruling, so how then can Congress codify it?

The court REPEALED Roe V Wade because it was a law crafted by the court, and the court has no authority to make law.

Congress however DOES have the authority to pass law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

None of it is simple. It will be very hard for the Democrats to get what they had under RvW.

Under Roe, the decision was made by the court with dictated law without regard for the people, the federal legislators, the state legislatures, nor the Constitution. An act of dictatorship by unelected rulers with zero constitutional authority to make law.

Under Dobbs, the court restored democracy - returning the issue to the people and the legislators of the many states.

Democracy, we are told by the democrats, is a threat to our democracy and must be crushed. Abortion promoters seek to crush democracy in favor of dictatorship because democracy undermines our democracy and ONLY dictatorship can save democracy from the ravages of democracy.

 

[Lesh]

View attachment 670921

If you are going to accuse someone of lying you have duty to NAME that lie and then show proof of it.

Go ahead asshole

 

[task0778]

Congress however DOES have the authority to pass law.

They cannot legislate whatever they please. Whatever they do has to be anchored in the Constitution as one of the functions they are responsible for. For example, Congress cannot legislate local and state law and order, that is not within their purview. Neither can they legislate abortion, according to the most recent ruling that overturned Roe v Wade. They can pass an abortion rights law like the House just did, but even if the Senate passed it and the president signed it, the Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. Why? Because such a law is not based in the Constitution and therefore Congress has no authority to legislate it.

 

[pknopp]

They cannot legislate whatever they please. Whatever they do has to be anchored in the Constitution as one of the functions they are responsible for. For example, Congress cannot legislate local and state law and order, that is not within their purview. Neither can they legislate abortion, according to the most recent ruling that overturned Roe v Wade. They can pass an abortion rights law like the House just did, but even if the Senate passed it and the president signed it, the Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. Why? Because such a law is not based in the Constitution and therefore Congress has no authority to legislate it.

What gives the federal government the right to legislate marijuana?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually the 10th would be operative and it wouldn't favor congress.

.

No, the 9th.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Congress federalizing abortion as a supposed right would be a direct affront.

But that amendment has basically been eradicated. I doubt SCOTUS would move if congress declared abortion a federal right.

HOWEVER, Congress will not, because despite the lies of the DNC media, it would be HIGHLY unpopular.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you are going to accuse someone of lying you have duty to NAME that lie and then show proof of it.

Go ahead asshole

Let's start with the "year" claim.

That fucking Nazi pig Garland was nominated 7 months before the election.

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then move on to the judicial filibuster.

Harry Reid dealt first blow to filibuster, leaving Democrats to decide whether to kill it