Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[JakeStarkey]

That power is not abused, emily.

This is how the system works.

 

[emilynghiem]

That power is not abused, emily.

This is how the system works.

Hi JakeStarkey
Are you saying people are PERFECT JakeStarkey
and the judges on the bench NEVER make mistakes in exceeding the limits of govt?
Really?

Here are some cases I would challenge you on that notion:
(1) When the Courts made a decision taking sides on the Terri Schiavo case
instead of ruling that there were faith based issues on both sides,and NO WRITTEN PROOF of her wishes.
Thus it was her family's word and faith vs. the beliefs of her ex-husband with a conflict of interest.
You can say that the other family members also had a conflict in beliefs.
So given 3-5 family members who believe she would want to continue support and they were willing to pay for and provide this,
versus the ex-husband (1 person) who believed she should be disconnected, and NO WRITTEN PROOF of Terri Schiavo's wishes
WHY do you feel the Courts had the right to make this decision for other people???

I call this a violation of separation of church and state.
That's one example

(2) I already gave the example of how the ACA mandates and ruling by Court
violated the Constitution by endorsing beliefs through govt that are against the beliefs and creeds of Constitutionalists
who believe in free market health care, free choice in health care, states' rights, and/or the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment
before extending authority to federal govt to require insurance to avoid tax penalties and basically regulate on the basis of religion,
(as the exemptions require either faith in govt health care or membership in religious organizations that are approved by govt).

(3) and the issue brought up several times of establishing the "belief in marriage as a right"
using the courts instead of Constitutional Amendment (compare the right to bear arms and right to vote that rely on Amendments)

These are examples of where the judiciary crossed the line into areas of beliefs
that not all people share, and thus violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments
by (1) establishing biased or faith-based policies (2) discriminating on the basis of creed.

Sorry JakeStarkey
I am willing to argue and prove my points all the way to the Presidency and Supreme Court if I have to.

Do you want to bet me 10 million dollars that 1-3 of the points above will prove to be
outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary to decide for the public, because BELIEFS are involved.

I will bet you 10 million.
I am confident that my arguments, or some form of them, will be proven to
correct the problem with these judicial rulings exceeding Constitutional authority.
I may not be perfect either, but at least I recognize when the govt went too far.

[If you want to throw in govt decisions regarding the war in Iraq as faith based
and "not proven to the public" -- sure, we can argue about other branches of govt
exceeding Constitutional limits, too. The death penalty is also an issue of faith-based
beliefs for and against. Abortion, marriage laws, homosexuality, and even immigration.
I found gun rights and voting rights get equally religious as right to marriage and health care.
How far do you want to take this JakeStarkey?]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense. You do not have to give your personal consent to make a law valid. That consent is placed in care of your representatives in our political system. That's why is a republican not a democratic system. Our representatives make those decisions for us.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nonsense. You do not have to give your personal consent to make a law valid. That consent is placed in care of your representatives in our political system. That's why is a republican not a democratic system. Our representatives make those decisions for us.

When it comes to Religious issues, beliefs and creeds
YES people have to consent or else you end up with what we see now -- lawsuits.

Your innocent statement that judicial power is not abused,
that would be funny if it weren't so sad.

I've had friends' lives and health destroyed over abuse of judicial and legal power.
Losing houses, minds, years of their lives over that.
Laughable how blind you are to this, if it weren't so tragic.

Look up legal abuse syndrome (yes, there is a psychological term for this area of
abuse, PTSD, and recovery), and judicial abuse.
There are as many groups online as with religious and cult abuse.

This is real, JakeStarkey, not a joke.

I will give you this, if you cannot see that Justice Roberts stretched his authority
to reinterpret ACA as a tax after it passed as a health bill under general welfare
(and/or the commerce clause argument which he did strike down to his credit),
then that is tragically funny. I will laugh at that, though it is painful.

Seriously, that whole mandate should be declared optional or divided by party,
where those who agree to be under those regulations may choose them, but not impose
on anyone of dissenting beliefs. Parties like religious groups have full right to implement
and exercise their own rituals of health care, but govt has no right to dictate the BELIEFS
of one party in conflict with the creeds of others -- that is going too far. The ACA mandates
are not the "least restrictive" solution; there is no reason to make insurance the "only way"
that doesn't incur a fine, any more than the courts can say praying to Jesus is the "only way" to practice religion.

If you believe it is required, you have the right to practice that.
But sorry, I do not. It is as wrong to impose on me, as a Constitutionalist,
as it is wrong to force a Muslim to eat pork. Just because pork is okay with you,
and perfectly legal as a choice, does not justify forcing that as a mandate on me by govt against my sacred beliefs that define my spiritual identity.

I'd rather go on hunger strike than be under ACA mandates I find unconstitutional.

 

[jillian]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

that's insane, you know and has no relationship to our governmental or legal system.

try again, nutter.

Dear jillian and WelfareQueen
I will go out on a limb and support WQ on this point.

(1) It is NATURAL LAW that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
That is how government authority is justified, like a contract, by consent of the parties to the contract, ie the people.

(2) I will back jillian JakeStarkey and others who are saying that
"we the people already agreed to authorize the judiciary to do x y z" by democratic process.
I understand that is the established precedent.

However, if this authority is ABUSED to violate the "consent of the governed" it contradicts itself.
You are saying that by consent of the people, we authorized govt, YES,
but NO we did not authorize govt to push this power so far as to violate the consent and rights of the public.

Examples: (a) Just because we give the President and Congress certain authorities in war decisions,
does NOT mean they can ABUSE that power to overreach and make decisions outside the agreement.
Many people did NOT agree that the UN resolutions called for going to war if there were refusals to inspections.
Many people did NOT agree that Congress or President should be subjecting troops to UN jurisdiction instead of US.
(b) Just because we authorize the judiciary to determine issues of Constitutionality, if a law is Constitutional or not,
does NOT mean we agree to let the judiciary MAKE RELIGIOUS DECISIONS for people in the case of conflicts.
Throwing out a case and refusing to rule, because issues of faith or belief on both sides are involved, is ONE THING.
But to rule in FAVOR of one faith-based side over another is NOT the same as throwing out a case or a law and requiring
the people or states to rewrite it so it does not impose, infringe or establish one belief over another.

So YES there are points where you are both right:
YES I agree with WelfareQueen that ultimately the govt answers to the people and is held accountable that way,
where any conflicts or grievances must be resolved in order to represent the public interest -- that ideally is the spirit of the law or contract
YES I agree with those saying we have authorized the judiciary to make decisions on law and interpretation

but NO this does not mean we give judiciary or govt "unchecked" authority -- there are LIMITS and CHECKS on this authority.

THAT is where we DISAGREE.
When our political beliefs are at stake, we don't agree which decisions were fair or not.
In truth, regardless if such contested rulings align or diverge from OUR beliefs,
the fact that overreaching rulings violate the beliefs of others, THAT is what makes them
unconstitutional -- not whether we agree with the content or not.

We should resolve those conflicts so there is Equal protection of Consent of the Governed. That should be the ruling principle -- do people affected by a contract agree to it? Or do we need to resolve issues before we can all consent equally?

We should be in the business of resolving these issues, NOT stifling or censoring by abusing the judiciary to overrule others "when we don't agree with the outcome." If we want the judicial decisions to reflect the consent of the people, we should reach agreement first, and base laws on that. We are all hypocrites if we only contest decisions that exclude or discriminate against our beliefs but endorse rulings that violate the beliefs of others we don't agree with anyway.
I prefer to stand on principle and refrain from any such imposition on creeds in general.
So yes, I do enforce the idea of LIMITS and CHECKS on what things the judiciary can
mandate or rule on; and just like my fellow progressive liberals, I do call for a "separation of
church and state authority" to stop the abuse of judicial and legal authority that amounts to "divine right to rule" by making decisions for people outside the Constitutional bounds of govt.

honestly, no one cares who you support.... you're simply wrong. the CHECK on government is the court.

end of story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, show me were I wrote "that judicial power is not abused". You lie is sad and not funny. Yes, judicial power is abused, and, yes, there are lawsuits. That's how we resolve issues we can't solve legislatively or administratively or civilly.

Your consent is vested in you representation.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I don't hate you, Valentine, you are my bitch. Can't hate my bitch.

Judicial Review was recognized by nine of the states before the Convention. The concept was not new to anyone, if not liked by everyone.

The fact is that JR has been resolved for 200 plus years, despite Jefferson and Jackson's screaming, and it will not go away.

Ilar, your dislike of it means no more than a leaf before a hurricane.

I don't care who you hate or don't hate, Fakey. Or who you claim to hate or not hate. Those aren't the same things.

I do note (with mirth) that once i identify you as being my bitch, then quick as a wink you turn a nifty phrase and start to claim that I am somehow yours.

Sorry, little feller. But you are not up to the task of owning or pwning anybody. You are the bitch. Nobody is your bitch. Dogs laugh at you.

I laugh at your endless reiteration of how little my thoughts mean to you as you engage in those endless reiterations.



Heel, bitch.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

that's insane, you know and has no relationship to our governmental or legal system.

try again, nutter.

Dear jillian and WelfareQueen
I will go out on a limb and support WQ on this point.

(1) It is NATURAL LAW that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
That is how government authority is justified, like a contract, by consent of the parties to the contract, ie the people.

(2) I will back jillian JakeStarkey and others who are saying that
"we the people already agreed to authorize the judiciary to do x y z" by democratic process.
I understand that is the established precedent.

However, if this authority is ABUSED to violate the "consent of the governed" it contradicts itself.
You are saying that by consent of the people, we authorized govt, YES,
but NO we did not authorize govt to push this power so far as to violate the consent and rights of the public.

Examples: (a) Just because we give the President and Congress certain authorities in war decisions,
does NOT mean they can ABUSE that power to overreach and make decisions outside the agreement.
Many people did NOT agree that the UN resolutions called for going to war if there were refusals to inspections.
Many people did NOT agree that Congress or President should be subjecting troops to UN jurisdiction instead of US.
(b) Just because we authorize the judiciary to determine issues of Constitutionality, if a law is Constitutional or not,
does NOT mean we agree to let the judiciary MAKE RELIGIOUS DECISIONS for people in the case of conflicts.
Throwing out a case and refusing to rule, because issues of faith or belief on both sides are involved, is ONE THING.
But to rule in FAVOR of one faith-based side over another is NOT the same as throwing out a case or a law and requiring
the people or states to rewrite it so it does not impose, infringe or establish one belief over another.

So YES there are points where you are both right:
YES I agree with WelfareQueen that ultimately the govt answers to the people and is held accountable that way,
where any conflicts or grievances must be resolved in order to represent the public interest -- that ideally is the spirit of the law or contract
YES I agree with those saying we have authorized the judiciary to make decisions on law and interpretation

but NO this does not mean we give judiciary or govt "unchecked" authority -- there are LIMITS and CHECKS on this authority.

THAT is where we DISAGREE.
When our political beliefs are at stake, we don't agree which decisions were fair or not.
In truth, regardless if such contested rulings align or diverge from OUR beliefs,
the fact that overreaching rulings violate the beliefs of others, THAT is what makes them
unconstitutional -- not whether we agree with the content or not.

We should resolve those conflicts so there is Equal protection of Consent of the Governed. That should be the ruling principle -- do people affected by a contract agree to it? Or do we need to resolve issues before we can all consent equally?

We should be in the business of resolving these issues, NOT stifling or censoring by abusing the judiciary to overrule others "when we don't agree with the outcome." If we want the judicial decisions to reflect the consent of the people, we should reach agreement first, and base laws on that. We are all hypocrites if we only contest decisions that exclude or discriminate against our beliefs but endorse rulings that violate the beliefs of others we don't agree with anyway.
I prefer to stand on principle and refrain from any such imposition on creeds in general.
So yes, I do enforce the idea of LIMITS and CHECKS on what things the judiciary can
mandate or rule on; and just like my fellow progressive liberals, I do call for a "separation of
church and state authority" to stop the abuse of judicial and legal authority that amounts to "divine right to rule" by making decisions for people outside the Constitutional bounds of govt.

honestly, no one cares who you support.... you're simply wrong. the CHECK on government is the court.

end of story.

Wrong. ONE of the checks on Government is the judicial system and the power of judicial review. (That much is true.)

On the OTHER HAND, it is vapid to then deny that the Court is PART of the government.

And, therefore, as part of the Government, the Judicial Branch is (and its decisions are) also subject to proper checks.

There is NO valid, logical, rational or reasonable basis to deny that the Court's rulings cannot themselves be properly reviewed and corrected within the context of our Constitutional system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ilar, my poor little valentine. Remember when you would where your knickers and beg me to sing you this song.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar, my poor little valentine. Remember when you would where your knickers and beg me to sing you this song.

Normally, I don't have any issues with you gay folks. But you remain utterly icky.

Now, sit, bitch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ilar, my poor little valentine. Remember when you would where your knickers and beg me to sing you this song.

Normally, I don't have any issues with you gay folks. But you remain utterly icky.

Now, sit, bitch.

You already did, sunshine.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar, my poor little valentine. Remember when you would where your knickers and beg me to sing you this song.

Normally, I don't have any issues with you gay folks. But you remain utterly icky.

Now, sit, bitch.

You already did, sunshine.

Your incoherence is in full bloom, Fakey.

I get it. You are wicked gay.

But your longing for all things me is simply out of the question. Seriously, your propositioning is gross. Cross species behavior is just disgusting. Go hump your own leg.

Roll over. Lie down. Play dead.

 

[jillian]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

that's insane, you know and has no relationship to our governmental or legal system.

try again, nutter.

Dear jillian and WelfareQueen
I will go out on a limb and support WQ on this point.

(1) It is NATURAL LAW that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
That is how government authority is justified, like a contract, by consent of the parties to the contract, ie the people.

(2) I will back jillian JakeStarkey and others who are saying that
"we the people already agreed to authorize the judiciary to do x y z" by democratic process.
I understand that is the established precedent.

However, if this authority is ABUSED to violate the "consent of the governed" it contradicts itself.
You are saying that by consent of the people, we authorized govt, YES,
but NO we did not authorize govt to push this power so far as to violate the consent and rights of the public.

Examples: (a) Just because we give the President and Congress certain authorities in war decisions,
does NOT mean they can ABUSE that power to overreach and make decisions outside the agreement.
Many people did NOT agree that the UN resolutions called for going to war if there were refusals to inspections.
Many people did NOT agree that Congress or President should be subjecting troops to UN jurisdiction instead of US.
(b) Just because we authorize the judiciary to determine issues of Constitutionality, if a law is Constitutional or not,
does NOT mean we agree to let the judiciary MAKE RELIGIOUS DECISIONS for people in the case of conflicts.
Throwing out a case and refusing to rule, because issues of faith or belief on both sides are involved, is ONE THING.
But to rule in FAVOR of one faith-based side over another is NOT the same as throwing out a case or a law and requiring
the people or states to rewrite it so it does not impose, infringe or establish one belief over another.

So YES there are points where you are both right:
YES I agree with WelfareQueen that ultimately the govt answers to the people and is held accountable that way,
where any conflicts or grievances must be resolved in order to represent the public interest -- that ideally is the spirit of the law or contract
YES I agree with those saying we have authorized the judiciary to make decisions on law and interpretation

but NO this does not mean we give judiciary or govt "unchecked" authority -- there are LIMITS and CHECKS on this authority.

THAT is where we DISAGREE.
When our political beliefs are at stake, we don't agree which decisions were fair or not.
In truth, regardless if such contested rulings align or diverge from OUR beliefs,
the fact that overreaching rulings violate the beliefs of others, THAT is what makes them
unconstitutional -- not whether we agree with the content or not.

We should resolve those conflicts so there is Equal protection of Consent of the Governed. That should be the ruling principle -- do people affected by a contract agree to it? Or do we need to resolve issues before we can all consent equally?

We should be in the business of resolving these issues, NOT stifling or censoring by abusing the judiciary to overrule others "when we don't agree with the outcome." If we want the judicial decisions to reflect the consent of the people, we should reach agreement first, and base laws on that. We are all hypocrites if we only contest decisions that exclude or discriminate against our beliefs but endorse rulings that violate the beliefs of others we don't agree with anyway.
I prefer to stand on principle and refrain from any such imposition on creeds in general.
So yes, I do enforce the idea of LIMITS and CHECKS on what things the judiciary can
mandate or rule on; and just like my fellow progressive liberals, I do call for a "separation of
church and state authority" to stop the abuse of judicial and legal authority that amounts to "divine right to rule" by making decisions for people outside the Constitutional bounds of govt.

honestly, no one cares who you support.... you're simply wrong. the CHECK on government is the court.

end of story.

Wrong. ONE of the checks on Government is the judicial system and the power of judicial review. (That much is true.)

On the OTHER HAND, it is vapid to then deny that the Court is PART of the government.

And, therefore, as part of the Government, the Judicial Branch is (and its decisions are) also subject to proper checks.

There is NO valid, logical, rational or reasonable basis to deny that the Court's rulings cannot themselves be properly reviewed and corrected within the context of our Constitutional system.

you should know better



how are things on schermerhorn st?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

that's insane, you know and has no relationship to our governmental or legal system.

try again, nutter.

Dear jillian and WelfareQueen
I will go out on a limb and support WQ on this point.

(1) It is NATURAL LAW that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
That is how government authority is justified, like a contract, by consent of the parties to the contract, ie the people.

(2) I will back jillian JakeStarkey and others who are saying that
"we the people already agreed to authorize the judiciary to do x y z" by democratic process.
I understand that is the established precedent.

However, if this authority is ABUSED to violate the "consent of the governed" it contradicts itself.
You are saying that by consent of the people, we authorized govt, YES,
but NO we did not authorize govt to push this power so far as to violate the consent and rights of the public.

Examples: (a) Just because we give the President and Congress certain authorities in war decisions,
does NOT mean they can ABUSE that power to overreach and make decisions outside the agreement.
Many people did NOT agree that the UN resolutions called for going to war if there were refusals to inspections.
Many people did NOT agree that Congress or President should be subjecting troops to UN jurisdiction instead of US.
(b) Just because we authorize the judiciary to determine issues of Constitutionality, if a law is Constitutional or not,
does NOT mean we agree to let the judiciary MAKE RELIGIOUS DECISIONS for people in the case of conflicts.
Throwing out a case and refusing to rule, because issues of faith or belief on both sides are involved, is ONE THING.
But to rule in FAVOR of one faith-based side over another is NOT the same as throwing out a case or a law and requiring
the people or states to rewrite it so it does not impose, infringe or establish one belief over another.

So YES there are points where you are both right:
YES I agree with WelfareQueen that ultimately the govt answers to the people and is held accountable that way,
where any conflicts or grievances must be resolved in order to represent the public interest -- that ideally is the spirit of the law or contract
YES I agree with those saying we have authorized the judiciary to make decisions on law and interpretation

but NO this does not mean we give judiciary or govt "unchecked" authority -- there are LIMITS and CHECKS on this authority.

THAT is where we DISAGREE.
When our political beliefs are at stake, we don't agree which decisions were fair or not.
In truth, regardless if such contested rulings align or diverge from OUR beliefs,
the fact that overreaching rulings violate the beliefs of others, THAT is what makes them
unconstitutional -- not whether we agree with the content or not.

We should resolve those conflicts so there is Equal protection of Consent of the Governed. That should be the ruling principle -- do people affected by a contract agree to it? Or do we need to resolve issues before we can all consent equally?

We should be in the business of resolving these issues, NOT stifling or censoring by abusing the judiciary to overrule others "when we don't agree with the outcome." If we want the judicial decisions to reflect the consent of the people, we should reach agreement first, and base laws on that. We are all hypocrites if we only contest decisions that exclude or discriminate against our beliefs but endorse rulings that violate the beliefs of others we don't agree with anyway.
I prefer to stand on principle and refrain from any such imposition on creeds in general.
So yes, I do enforce the idea of LIMITS and CHECKS on what things the judiciary can
mandate or rule on; and just like my fellow progressive liberals, I do call for a "separation of
church and state authority" to stop the abuse of judicial and legal authority that amounts to "divine right to rule" by making decisions for people outside the Constitutional bounds of govt.

honestly, no one cares who you support.... you're simply wrong. the CHECK on government is the court.

end of story.

Wrong. ONE of the checks on Government is the judicial system and the power of judicial review. (That much is true.)

On the OTHER HAND, it is vapid to then deny that the Court is PART of the government.

And, therefore, as part of the Government, the Judicial Branch is (and its decisions are) also subject to proper checks.

There is NO valid, logical, rational or reasonable basis to deny that the Court's rulings cannot themselves be properly reviewed and corrected within the context of our Constitutional system.

you should know better

No. YOU should know that what I said is true. That you DON'T know as much is a very sad commentary on the propaganda you received instead of an education.

how are things on schermerhorn st?

I wouldn't know. I work in Brooklyn hardly at all.

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. You do not have to give your personal consent to make a law valid. That consent is placed in care of your representatives in our political system. That's why is a republican not a democratic system. Our representatives make those decisions for us.

When it comes to Religious issues, beliefs and creeds
YES people have to consent or else you end up with what we see now -- lawsuits.

Nope. The validity of a law isn't predicated on your 'belief' that it is.

Your entire premise is nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

Thank you ShootSpeeders
I align more with you and WelfareQueen on this
because of the political history of legal and judicial abuse that otherwise has no check after the fact.

I support jillian and JakeStarkey
in respecting the Judiciary and the precedent set and followed,
where we'd have to AGREE how to go about reforming the current
political process and all laws, past present and future.

As Jake has argued with me time and again, nobody can just randomly
jump up and declare all such rulings by the judiciary to be voided. If people
have been following this system, we'd have to agree how to go about changing it,
and at least JakeStarkey and I AGREE to use the given system to change things
and correct things following the given democratic process.

Regardless of our different views, where I believe all sides all beliefs
should be equally included and protected,
at the very least I would call for a consensus on faith-based beliefs and policies
that we DON'T agree on, by nature of our personally held beliefs that will not change and cannot be forced to by govt. [ie if we form a consensus agreement amoung ourselves personally FIRST, then we can go about taking the steps through the govt process of reforming things formally, and not have political chaos, but agreement step by step so it is orderly and everyone's beliefs
are included and protected instead of threatened by conflicting ideologies.]

Your entire process collapses with one unsurmountable problem in your assumptions:

People are going to disagree. Your conception of governance has no remedy for such an occurance as it is prefaced on everyone agreeing.

If everyone agreed, there would be no need for governance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nonsense. You do not have to give your personal consent to make a law valid. That consent is placed in care of your representatives in our political system. That's why is a republican not a democratic system. Our representatives make those decisions for us.

When it comes to Religious issues, beliefs and creeds
YES people have to consent or else you end up with what we see now -- lawsuits.

Nope. The validity of a law isn't predicated on your 'belief' that it is.

Your entire premise is nonsense.

Not what I was saying, Skylar
I am saying if the CONTENT of the law is predicated on BELIEF,
then the judiciary has no authority to establish that law for the public.

DO YOU GET THIS OR NOT?

The PEOPLE have the right to make decisions regarding their BELIEFS
but GOVT does not have authority to DICTATE beliefs through laws imposed on the public.

Ie if the Court makes a ruling endorsing beliefs about straight marriage and banning gay marriage
"based on belief" that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Likewise if the Court makes a ruling endorsing beliefs about gay marriage and punishing people
whose beliefs require them to reject homosexuality
"based on beliefs" that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

So in both cases it is the CONTENT of the case and the two sides equally based on BELIEFS
that makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Court to make rulings establishing
one sides' beliefs over the other. IS THAT CLEAR?

Please let me know if this ^ explanation is clear enough.
I have tried explaining this over and over, and hope you might be discerning enough
to see what I mean, regardless which sides' beliefs you favor.

I believe in both sides equally so it makes it easier for me to see that the rulings
should not infringe or threaten one side over the other. But people who only
favor one side have a harder time seeing the need to treat both sides equally as beliefs.

Can you be fair to both sides, or are you so biased you can only defend one side of this equation?

NOTE: As for my beliefs, my beliefs as a Constitutionalist come first, before any
beliefs I have that are biased. ie even if I am prochoice, my Constitutional beliefs come first that prolife beliefs are protected equally as prochoice, so I cannot put my beliefs before others, especially if we disagree. We can practice these equally in private, but when it comes to public policy and funding, we either need to separate or have a consensus; but in no way is it Constitutional to impose one sides' beliefs over the other through govt. Regardless which side I believe in or favor personally, my beliefs about Constitutional inclusion and ethics come first where people and groups of ALL beliefs can be treated equally.

Are you this fair with your personal beliefs and govt policy?

For example, as a Constitutionalist, even if I agree with progay advocates that more protection is needed to prevent endangerment and discrimination against gay and transgender persons,
I KNOW the right answer is NOT TO DISCRIMINATE IN THE REVERSE.
TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. So I am not going to support court rulings that go too far, and are biased one way or the other to the point the opponents are excluded or penalized for their beliefs.

That is why I advocate for Constitutional rulings and solutions that
BOTH SIDES AGREE include and protect their beliefs EQUALLY --
WHERE THE CONTENT OF THE LAW CONCERNS BELIEFS.

Yes, this is my belief as a Constitutionalist that all creeds should be protected and treated equally under law,
even views I don't agree with that person or group has a right to practice and defend for themselves (just not impose on others)

Do you agree with the BELIEF that people of all creeds deserve equal treatment under law?
Thank you, Skylar, I trust you to be as fair as possible
and hope you can treat all people's beliefs equally as I BELIEVE our laws call for. Do you?

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. You do not have to give your personal consent to make a law valid. That consent is placed in care of your representatives in our political system. That's why is a republican not a democratic system. Our representatives make those decisions for us.

When it comes to Religious issues, beliefs and creeds
YES people have to consent or else you end up with what we see now -- lawsuits.

Nope. The validity of a law isn't predicated on your 'belief' that it is.

Your entire premise is nonsense.

Not what I was saying, Skylar
I am saying if the CONTENT of the law is predicated on BELIEF,
then the judiciary has no authority to establish that law for the public.

And I'm saying nonsense. You keep putting 'belief' on this pedestal as untouchable. Its not. A belief can be taken up as a basis for a law if enough folks get behind it and it doesn't violate rights. Or can be discarded as the basis for a law if enough folks don't get behind it and it doesn't violate rights.

That someone has a belief about something doesn't have a thing to do with the judiciary's authority.

DO YOU GET THIS OR NOT?

Oh, I get what you're saying. Its just nonsense. Your entire premise, all of your assumptions, nonsense. That beliefs have some special, unassailable quality. That all beliefs must be taken into account. That beliefs somehow negate judicial authority.

All of it is nonsense. There's no such quality, no such need to take all beliefs into account, no such effect on judicial authority.

Do you get this or not?

 

[emilynghiem]

Nonsense. You do not have to give your personal consent to make a law valid. That consent is placed in care of your representatives in our political system. That's why is a republican not a democratic system. Our representatives make those decisions for us.

When it comes to Religious issues, beliefs and creeds
YES people have to consent or else you end up with what we see now -- lawsuits.

Nope. The validity of a law isn't predicated on your 'belief' that it is.

Your entire premise is nonsense.

Not what I was saying, Skylar
I am saying if the CONTENT of the law is predicated on BELIEF,
then the judiciary has no authority to establish that law for the public.

And I'm saying nonsense. You keep putting 'belief' on this pedestal as untouchable. Its not. A belief can be taken up as a basis for a law if enough folks get behind it and it doesn't violate rights. Or can be discarded as the basis for a law if enough folks don't get behind it and it doesn't violate rights.

That someone has a belief about something doesn't have a thing to do with the judiciary's authority.

DO YOU GET THIS OR NOT?

Oh, I get what you're saying. Its just nonsense. Your entire premise, all of your assumptions, nonsense. That beliefs have some special, unassailable quality. That all beliefs must be taken into account. That beliefs somehow negate judicial authority.

All of it is nonsense. There's no such quality, no such need to take all beliefs into account, no such effect on judicial authority.

Do you get this or not?

Dear Skylar where beliefs are involved PEOPLE have to agree where the laws are going to be made.
We haven't AGREED with the abortion laws and marriage laws yet, that's why the nation is still so divided.

Clearly NEITHER side of the prochoice or prolife debate is going to let govt decide for them.
So that is why consensus becomes legally necessary to protect, include and treat beliefs on both sides equally.

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. You do not have to give your personal consent to make a law valid. That consent is placed in care of your representatives in our political system. That's why is a republican not a democratic system. Our representatives make those decisions for us.

When it comes to Religious issues, beliefs and creeds
YES people have to consent or else you end up with what we see now -- lawsuits.

Nope. The validity of a law isn't predicated on your 'belief' that it is.

Your entire premise is nonsense.

Not what I was saying, Skylar
I am saying if the CONTENT of the law is predicated on BELIEF,
then the judiciary has no authority to establish that law for the public.

And I'm saying nonsense. You keep putting 'belief' on this pedestal as untouchable. Its not. A belief can be taken up as a basis for a law if enough folks get behind it and it doesn't violate rights. Or can be discarded as the basis for a law if enough folks don't get behind it and it doesn't violate rights.

That someone has a belief about something doesn't have a thing to do with the judiciary's authority.

DO YOU GET THIS OR NOT?

Oh, I get what you're saying. Its just nonsense. Your entire premise, all of your assumptions, nonsense. That beliefs have some special, unassailable quality. That all beliefs must be taken into account. That beliefs somehow negate judicial authority.

All of it is nonsense. There's no such quality, no such need to take all beliefs into account, no such effect on judicial authority.

Do you get this or not?

Dear Skylar where beliefs are involved PEOPLE have to agree where the laws are going to be made.
We haven't AGREED with the abortion laws and marriage laws yet, that's why the nation is still so divided.

People don't have to agree. That's what you don't get. People disagree all the time. That's what you don't get. There's nothing about 'beliefs' that holds any special significance. It restricts no judical authority, it has no special quality, nor does every belief have to be taken into account.

Your entire argument collapses on simple *disagreement*. As your premise has no way forward when this happens. Constitutional republics do: The majority decide within the bounds of individual rights.

Clearly NEITHER side of the prochoice or prolife debate is going to let govt decide for them.

The government doesn't have to 'decide for them'. It can simply get the hell out of their way and let them decide for themselves. As it has since Roe v. Wade, the government largely isn't a factor.

That someone 'believes' that they have the right to control your body and tell you what to do doesn't mean that they have any such control. Belief doesn't carry any such power.

Your entire basis of assumption is nonsense.