The March on washington crowd est.

[DiveCon]

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?


.


.

no, its not the same at all

 

[DiveCon]

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.

no, go back and read what he said

 

[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,

.

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.

HUH?

Fucking apologists.

"We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. "

FDR

 

[Polk]

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.

no, go back and read what he said

I did.

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.

That's pretty clearly saying that even if a law is ruled constitutional by the courts, it's still not constitutional if he feels it isn't.

 

[Contumacious]

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?


.


.

no, its not the same at all

Yeah, right. And you have a bridge in Brooklyn you want to sell me.


.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

HUH?

Fucking apologists.

"We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. "

FDR

thats not abolishing the court

 

[DiveCon]

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

no, go back and read what he said

I did.

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.

That's pretty clearly saying that even if a law is ruled constitutional by the courts, it's still not constitutional if he feels it isn't.

no, i dont believe that was his intended meaning

 

[DiveCon]

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?


.


.

no, its not the same at all

Yeah, right. And you have a bridge in Brooklyn you want to sell me.


.

are you interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn?

 

[Polk]

no, go back and read what he said

I did.

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.

That's pretty clearly saying that even if a law is ruled constitutional by the courts, it's still not constitutional if he feels it isn't.

no, i dont believe that was his intended meaning

That was the implication on my end. I could have worked the same argument is a more neutral way, such as "The Constitution has a meaning independent of the court's rulings on it" and addressed the same point.

 

[DiveCon]

I did.



That's pretty clearly saying that even if a law is ruled constitutional by the courts, it's still not constitutional if he feels it isn't.

no, i dont believe that was his intended meaning

That was the implication on my end. I could have worked the same argument is a more neutral way, such as "The Constitution has a meaning independent of the court's rulings on it" and addressed the same point.

then you read something that i don't see

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then a future court could decide that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals it applies to militias. That would thus make prior rulings to the contrary WRONG?

 

[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?

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,

.

Say no more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You've completely misrepresented what I claimed. The strawman Me and the real Me are two different people. Don't respond to me with posts to him.

 

[The T]

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.

Under our FORM of Government? You are WRONG. The Court NEVER has the FINAL SAY in anything.

 

[Liability]

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.

You've completely misrepresented what I claimed. The strawman Me and the real Me are two different people. Don't respond to me with posts to him.

Gibberish to the nth power.

Classic NYcarbonation! (i.e., you got gas!)

 

[pete]

Speaks for itself ..

Gateway Pundit: CLEAN Conservatives vs FILTHY Liberals-- A Photographic Essay

 

[paperview]

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.

Under our FORM of Government? You are WRONG. The Court NEVER has the FINAL SAY in anything.

Using that logic, the Constitution itself never has the final say either, since it can always be amended.

 

[Si modo]

Speaks for itself ..

Gateway Pundit: CLEAN Conservatives vs FILTHY Liberals-- A Photographic Essay

The Mall was a shithole after the Inauguration. Those pictures don't even start to show what a shithole it was. But, great praise for the Park Service and some volunteers. The next day, it looked as good as ever (except that it was a dustbowl).