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.
Well, at least you finally admit that what you advocate is in stark contrast to the principles the country was founded upon. I'll give you that.
I'm not, you guys bitch and moan about things federal gov't does to violate states right, yet not a single supreme court case has determined that. I've even heard people claim regulations in drugs and other stuff should be determined by the states. Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be
The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.
The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.
And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court
Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?
I'm not, you guys bitch and moan about things federal gov't does to violate states right, yet not a single supreme court case has determined that. I've even heard people claim regulations in drugs and other stuff should be determined by the states. Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be
When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.
Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.
Seriously......how do all the countries in the world get along with all their different rules and laws?
What about all the different companies in the same high rise?
The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.
And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court
Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?
Everyone is supposed to. Though many of our elected leaders are too cowardly to actually keep their oath of office.
The Constitution speaks for itself. Words mean something. I know you don't like that because you can't change things easily, but they do.
When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves.
Nice strawman, but the Constitution clearly outlines specific areas in which the Fed can impose uniform laws.
"The Founding Fathers worked hard to come up with a Constitution that could stand the test of time. They had both the foresight and humility to know that with changing times there would be a need to change the charter for the US government."
The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.
And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court
Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?
When SCOTUS rules in direct contrast to what is clearly stated in the Constitution- well, I'm sure you're familiar with Jefferson's thoughts on how to handle such a matter.
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
This post needs to be forwarded a number of threads and a lot of posters.The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.
I think there are people who specifically want the case law and not the actual Constitution dictating what it says.
This post needs to be forwarded a number of threads and a lot of posters.
I think there are people who specifically want the case law and not the actual Constitution dictating what it says.
Yep. They speak of precident. Even precident(s) can be and ARE wrong.
When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.
Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.
Great post comrade! There will be an extra half loaf of stale bread waiting for you at the commissary, but don't tell the others........they believe they are all getting the same amount.
Seriously......how do all the countries in the world get along with all their different rules and laws? What about all the different companies in the same high rise?
Ah yes, the response from the moron right on this forum to everything, call someone communist
And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court
Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?
The power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution was established in Case Law, not the Constitution. Somebody help. Was this Marbury v. Madison?
right, so we haven't followed the constitution in decades and decades?
And what else would the judicial branch do if they did'nt interpret laws? What was the point of the judicial branch then if not to determine if laws are unconstitutional or not? To look pretty in robes?
When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.
Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.
The constitution strictly says that states have most of the power in this governmental system. You are free to alter the constitution with amendments giving the federal government more power but until then your way of thinking is nothing more than a pipedream.
NO need to. Maybe the whiny conservatives can change the constitution every time the federal gov't does something and they cry its unconstitutional......
When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.
Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.
That ship has already sailed and is not coming back....
There is no way to return to the 19th century view of states rights. Too many functions are embedded into the Federal Government and can't be portioned out to the states. If we were to actually try to execute a state centered United States again we would throw ourselves into a second ciil war. Taxes and debt would escallate and services would be severely reduced. We the people would not tolerate it
Anyone who doesn't follow the constitution is breaking the supreme law of the land since it states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land in itself. Anything written in it supercedes any law created by congress or the states....
The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.
Anyone else find that preposterous?
Partially correct. The people are the final arbitor.
Quote:
What overturns that other than another SCOTUS ruling?
The Constitution itself.
Tail.......wags dog
Really? You really were inept at History weren't you?
That ship has already sailed and is not coming back....
There is no way to return to the 19th century view of states rights. Too many functions are embedded into the Federal Government and can't be portioned out to the states. If we were to actually try to execute a state centered United States again we would throw ourselves into a second ciil war. Taxes and debt would escallate and services would be severely reduced. We the people would not tolerate it
Anyone who doesn't follow the constitution is breaking the supreme law of the land since it states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land in itself. Anything written in it supercedes any law created by congress or the states........Until it's Changed.
Really? You really were inept at History weren't you?
How does the Constitution interpret itself?
Words Mean things. And the Founders left a 'Manual' of sorts.
