JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
OKTexas, email your brief to SCOTUS.
Tell us what is their reply when it comes.
Tell us what is their reply when it comes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I don't agree with what he brought up, but they didn't rewrite anything. This kind of goes along with what we were talking about yesterday lolOKTexas, email your brief to SCOTUS.
Tell us what is their reply when it comes.
They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gaysThey didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.
I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.
Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.
LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gaysThey didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?
I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.
Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.
Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?
OKTexas, email your brief to SCOTUS.
Tell us what is their reply when it comes.
LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gaysI'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.
Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.
Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?
They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays
Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.
Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?
When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.
Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.
They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.
Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?
When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.
Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.
Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.
Conservatives know the Constitution very well, and support the conservative government it mandates.The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.
That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.
They don't understand the Constitution.
The Constitution says we'll have a Congress, a President and VP, a Supreme Courts, and lower courts. It defines their duties, and names the things Congress is authorized to make laws about. Plus a few other things. All as valid today as they were in 1789, except for a few parts that normal (i.e. conservative) Americans have long thrown out via amendment.The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.
That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.
They don't understand the Constitution.
You silly fool, the progressives want to shred the constitution.The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.
That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.
They don't understand the Constitution.
They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.
Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?
When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.
Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.
Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.
Exactly.The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.
That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.
They don't understand the Constitution.
TN said nothing of the sort, OK; that was your silly interpretation of what he said.
I know what I am talking about; you don't. You made up out of nothing what TN said. Either you are a dolt or malignant.TN said nothing of the sort, OK; that was your silly interpretation of what he said.
If you want to address what I actually said, feel free. But read up on the whole exchange so you know what your talking about.
Exactly.The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.
That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.
They don't understand the Constitution.
They don't understand the Constitution and have contempt for its case law.
And conservatives have no desire for 'smaller government' when they seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by denying women their right to privacy, gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, and immigrants their right to due process.
'Less regulation' is conservaspeak for reckless, irresponsible governance and public policy, where corporations pollute with impunity, jeopardize the safety of Americans in their places of employment, and endanger the health and lives of American consumers.
Last, conservatives need to exhibit greater fealty to Constitutional jurisprudence, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution – “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'
If conservatives are serious about governing responsibly, they'll do so in good faith to the benefit of all Americans, not blindly adhering to failed conservative dogma.