The March on washington crowd est.

[Polk]

Are you sure it is?

And before you reflexively reply, note: there can be a difference between a law or program being "ruled" to be Constitutional and it actually being Constitutional.

Welcome to subjectivity. If you won't accept Supreme Court rulings as precedent, then the question can't really be answered. Which is find by you, since you're holding a position not supported by law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed so. And when there is no Constitutional MANDATE in doing so. I have yet for ONE person show me where it says Congress or the POTUS may do these things.

And before ANY lib gets started? I don't care a WIT of the past or precidents.

Still is unlawful as to the Constitution. Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

Are you sure it is?

And before you reflexively reply, note: there can be a difference between a law or program being "ruled" to be Constitutional and it actually being Constitutional.EDIT: After hitting submit, I decided to see what I could find. I quickly found the Helvering case.* It has been found by SCOTUS to be Constitutional. BUT, along those lines, peruse this: Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

(I am not a huge fan of Lew Rockwell offerings, but that one seems pretty good.)

___________________________
* Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).

NO, there isn't. Since ruling a law constitutional is itself a constitutional act, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a law ruled constitutional to be unconstitutional.

 

[Liability]

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

Are you sure it is?

And before you reflexively reply, note: there can be a difference between a law or program being "ruled" to be Constitutional and it actually being Constitutional.EDIT: After hitting submit, I decided to see what I could find. I quickly found the Helvering case.* It has been found by SCOTUS to be Constitutional. BUT, along those lines, peruse this: Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

(I am not a huge fan of Lew Rockwell offerings, but that one seems pretty good.)

___________________________
* Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).

NO, there isn't. Since ruling a law constitutional is itself a constitutional act, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a law ruled constitutional to be unconstitutional.

If that was even nominally true, then there can be no possibility EVER of any SCOTUS ruling on the Constitutionality of ANY law or program EVER getting overruled and reversed.

According to your failed attempt at "logic," the Dred Scott decision is still the law of the land.

SCOTUS judges are not actually gods. They make mistakes. They make stupid ass incorrect rulings. The test is not what they say (that has the force of law, but is not the acid test of accuracy). The test is what the Constitution says and actually means.

 

[Varth Dader]

According to your failed attempt at "logic," the Dred Scott decision is still the law of the land.

SCOTUS judges are not actually gods. They make mistakes. They make stupid ass incorrect rulings. The test is not what they say (that has the force of law, but is not the acid test of accuracy). The test is what the Constitution says and actually means.

Wasn't the Dred Scott decision reversed by passing the 13th amendment of the Constitution?

 

[Liability]

According to your failed attempt at "logic," the Dred Scott decision is still the law of the land.

SCOTUS judges are not actually gods. They make mistakes. They make stupid ass incorrect rulings. The test is not what they say (that has the force of law, but is not the acid test of accuracy). The test is what the Constitution says and actually means.

Wasn't the Dred Scott decision reversed by passing the 13th amendment of the Constitution?

I believe it was reversed by the 14th Amendment.

And?

Either way, the SCOTUS infallible Constitutional decision was still found to have been WRONG.

AND, it is not the only case to be overruled by subsequent decisional law.

As long as ANY case decided by the SCOTUS is later reversed and overruled by a subsequent SCOTUS decision, my response to NYcarb stands as the correct statement of law. The SCOTUS is not infallible.

 

[Varth Dader]

According to your failed attempt at "logic," the Dred Scott decision is still the law of the land.

SCOTUS judges are not actually gods. They make mistakes. They make stupid ass incorrect rulings. The test is not what they say (that has the force of law, but is not the acid test of accuracy). The test is what the Constitution says and actually means.

Wasn't the Dred Scott decision reversed by passing the 13th amendment of the Constitution?

I believe it was reversed by the 14th Amendment.

And?

Either way, the SCOTUS infallible Constitutional decision was still found to have been WRONG.

AND, it is not the only case to be overruled by subsequent decisional law.

As long as ANY case decided by the SCOTUS is later reversed and overruled by a subsequent SCOTUS decision, my response to NYcarb stands as the correct statement of law. The SCOTUS is not infallible.

Sorry, it's because you used such a famous case it rang a bell in my ears and reminded me of my history classes.

Indeed, SCOTUS is not infallible. No one is for that matter.

 

[oreo]

Lets see--it was just in April that Obama made fun of the tea party's going on around the country. "Those people waving those little "tea bags" around--with the audiance (Obama sheeple) LAUGHING.

I wonder if Obama is laughing NOW?

]I am 56 years old--& I have never seen this in my entire life. Ordinary American--law abiding--tax paying citizens of this country--that paid their own way to get there--took time off from work--& who most have never protested ANYTHING in their lives. They showed up. Regardless if it is 2 million or Tens of Thousands. IT WAS HUGE.

More than any protest I ever saw during the Viet Nam War.

THE SLEEPING GIANT IS AWAKE!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you sure it is?

And before you reflexively reply, note: there can be a difference between a law or program being "ruled" to be Constitutional and it actually being Constitutional.

Welcome to subjectivity. If you won't accept Supreme Court rulings as precedent, then the question can't really be answered. Which is find by you, since you're holding a position not supported by law.

He lives in liabilityville, population one very strange dude who walks around in a justice's robe, flip flops, and is armed with an AK, a bolo, a boomerang, and six cyanide double breath mints.

 

[Contumacious]

For alli: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now show us where it is forbidden.

You are a victim of government education, right?


'

 

[Contumacious]

Once again. Protesting a war is not the same as protesting violations of citizens' rights.

People always protest wars. What's going on now is a serious movement against restructuring of the US.

Indeed so. And when there is no Constitutional MANDATE in doing so. I have yet for ONE person show me where it says Congress or the POTUS may do these things.

And before ANY lib gets started? I don't care a WIT of the past or precidents.

Still is unlawful as to the Constitution. Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

It isn't.

The 1st Court Of Appeals in Boston ruled that it was unconstitutional.

But scumbag extraordinaire FDR had threatened to abolish SCOTUS if it ruled again that his fascistic scams were unconstitutional so in order to avoid a constitutional crisis the SCOTUS reversed the First Circuit,

.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

According to your failed attempt at "logic," the Dred Scott decision is still the law of the land.

SCOTUS judges are not actually gods. They make mistakes. They make stupid ass incorrect rulings. The test is not what they say (that has the force of law, but is not the acid test of accuracy). The test is what the Constitution says and actually means.

Wasn't the Dred Scott decision reversed by passing the 13th amendment of the Constitution?

I believe it was reversed by the 14th Amendment.

And?

Either way, the SCOTUS infallible Constitutional decision was still found to have been WRONG.

AND, it is not the only case to be overruled by subsequent decisional law.

As long as ANY case decided by the SCOTUS is later reversed and overruled by a subsequent SCOTUS decision, my response to NYcarb stands as the correct statement of law. The SCOTUS is not infallible.

I think you've got a problem here.

As the final arbiter of Constitutionality, if the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional, it is. If the Constitution is later ammended, that doesn't make the earlier decision wrong from a technical stand point. It was a correct decision given the Constitution as it was when the decision was rendered.

As for overturning past cases via SCOTUS rulings that's incredibly rare IIRC. The usual approach is to give a decision that doesn't explicitly say the earlier decision is wrong, but rather marginalizes it. IIRC the current Pro-Life strategy it to try to get a SCOTUS case that would toss Roe v. Wade to the States rather than an outright reversal.

 

[DiveCon]

Indeed so. And when there is no Constitutional MANDATE in doing so. I have yet for ONE person show me where it says Congress or the POTUS may do these things.

And before ANY lib gets started? I don't care a WIT of the past or precidents.

Still is unlawful as to the Constitution. Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

It isn't.

The 1st Court Of Appeals in Boston ruled that it was unconstitutional.

But scumbag extraordinaire FDR had threatened to abolish SCOTUS if it ruled again that his fascistic scams were unconstitutional so in order to avoid a constitutional crisis the SCOTUS reversed the First Circuit,

.

i'm gonna need to see some kind of source for that one
i know FDR tried to load the court, but never heard he threatened or attempted to abolish SCOTUS

 

[DiveCon]

Wasn't the Dred Scott decision reversed by passing the 13th amendment of the Constitution?

I believe it was reversed by the 14th Amendment.

And?

Either way, the SCOTUS infallible Constitutional decision was still found to have been WRONG.

AND, it is not the only case to be overruled by subsequent decisional law.

As long as ANY case decided by the SCOTUS is later reversed and overruled by a subsequent SCOTUS decision, my response to NYcarb stands as the correct statement of law. The SCOTUS is not infallible.

I think you've got a problem here.

As the final arbiter of Constitutionality, if the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional, it is. If the Constitution is later ammended, that doesn't make the earlier decision wrong from a technical stand point. It was a correct decision given the Constitution as it was when the decision was rendered.

As for overturning past cases via SCOTUS rulings that's incredibly rare IIRC. The usual approach is to give a decision that doesn't explicitly say the earlier decision is wrong, but rather marginalizes it. IIRC the current Pro-Life strategy it to try to get a SCOTUS case that would toss Roe v. Wade to the States rather than an outright reversal.

but, an earlier SCOTUS can rule something constitutional that a later SCOTUS may rule unconstitutional
so being ruled constitutional does not mean that it wont later be ruled unconstitutional

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I believe it was reversed by the 14th Amendment.

And?

Either way, the SCOTUS infallible Constitutional decision was still found to have been WRONG.

AND, it is not the only case to be overruled by subsequent decisional law.

As long as ANY case decided by the SCOTUS is later reversed and overruled by a subsequent SCOTUS decision, my response to NYcarb stands as the correct statement of law. The SCOTUS is not infallible.

I think you've got a problem here.

As the final arbiter of Constitutionality, if the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional, it is. If the Constitution is later ammended, that doesn't make the earlier decision wrong from a technical stand point. It was a correct decision given the Constitution as it was when the decision was rendered.

As for overturning past cases via SCOTUS rulings that's incredibly rare IIRC. The usual approach is to give a decision that doesn't explicitly say the earlier decision is wrong, but rather marginalizes it. IIRC the current Pro-Life strategy it to try to get a SCOTUS case that would toss Roe v. Wade to the States rather than an outright reversal.

but, an earlier SCOTUS can rule something constitutional that a later SCOTUS may rule unconstitutional
so being ruled constitutional does not mean that it wont later be ruled unconstitutional

It is possible, its just that since justices try to respect precedent as much as possible, its pretty rare.

 

[DiveCon]

I think you've got a problem here.

As the final arbiter of Constitutionality, if the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional, it is. If the Constitution is later ammended, that doesn't make the earlier decision wrong from a technical stand point. It was a correct decision given the Constitution as it was when the decision was rendered.

As for overturning past cases via SCOTUS rulings that's incredibly rare IIRC. The usual approach is to give a decision that doesn't explicitly say the earlier decision is wrong, but rather marginalizes it. IIRC the current Pro-Life strategy it to try to get a SCOTUS case that would toss Roe v. Wade to the States rather than an outright reversal.

but, an earlier SCOTUS can rule something constitutional that a later SCOTUS may rule unconstitutional
so being ruled constitutional does not mean that it wont later be ruled unconstitutional

It is possible, its just that since justices try to respect precedent as much as possible, its pretty rare.

but i do believe THAT was the point being made by Liability
i could be wrong, but only he can say if i am or not

 

[Contumacious]

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

It isn't.

The 1st Court Of Appeals in Boston ruled that it was unconstitutional.

But scumbag extraordinaire FDR had threatened to abolish SCOTUS if it ruled again that his fascistic scams were unconstitutional so in order to avoid a constitutional crisis the SCOTUS reversed the First Circuit,

.

i'm gonna need to see some kind of source for that one
i know FDR tried to load the court, but never heard he threatened or attempted to abolish SCOTUS

What is the practical difference between "loading" the court and abolishing the court. If every president tried to pack the court would SCOTUS rulings be considered credible?


.


.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

Are you sure it is?

And before you reflexively reply, note: there can be a difference between a law or program being "ruled" to be Constitutional and it actually being Constitutional.EDIT: After hitting submit, I decided to see what I could find. I quickly found the Helvering case.* It has been found by SCOTUS to be Constitutional. BUT, along those lines, peruse this: Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

(I am not a huge fan of Lew Rockwell offerings, but that one seems pretty good.)

___________________________
* Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).

NO, there isn't. Since ruling a law constitutional is itself a constitutional act, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a law ruled constitutional to be unconstitutional.

Your post makes no logical sense at all.

 

[Polk]

Indeed so. And when there is no Constitutional MANDATE in doing so. I have yet for ONE person show me where it says Congress or the POTUS may do these things.

And before ANY lib gets started? I don't care a WIT of the past or precidents.

Still is unlawful as to the Constitution. Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

It isn't.

The 1st Court Of Appeals in Boston ruled that it was unconstitutional.

But scumbag extraordinaire FDR had threatened to abolish SCOTUS if it ruled again that his fascistic scams were unconstitutional so in order to avoid a constitutional crisis the SCOTUS reversed the First Circuit,

.

Now you're just making shit up.
FDR never threatened to abolish the Supreme Court and the decision was 5-2, not exactly split down the middle.

 

[Polk]

Then why is Social Security constitutional?

It isn't.

The 1st Court Of Appeals in Boston ruled that it was unconstitutional.

But scumbag extraordinaire FDR had threatened to abolish SCOTUS if it ruled again that his fascistic scams were unconstitutional so in order to avoid a constitutional crisis the SCOTUS reversed the First Circuit,

.

i'm gonna need to see some kind of source for that one
i know FDR tried to load the court, but never heard he threatened or attempted to abolish SCOTUS

You didn't fall asleep in history class. Your understanding is correct. Contumacious likes to make outlandish claims.

 

[Polk]

but, an earlier SCOTUS can rule something constitutional that a later SCOTUS may rule unconstitutional
so being ruled constitutional does not mean that it wont later be ruled unconstitutional

It is possible, its just that since justices try to respect precedent as much as possible, its pretty rare.

but i do believe THAT was the point being made by Liability
i could be wrong, but only he can say if i am or not

That wasn't his point. He effectively said Supreme Court rulings don't matter.