NationStates Jolt Archive

please show me the line in the cosntitution that says you are not entitled to freedom fo speech if you didnt vote, because i dont remember it

please show me the line in the cosntitution that says you are not entitled to freedom fo speech if you didnt vote, because i dont remember it
Are you a strict constructionist? Because the Constitution also says nothing about abortion or welfare. Or gay marriages.

There isn't one. Just don't expect people to take you seriously about politics thereafter. That's all.

Are you a strict constructionist? Because the Constitution also says nothing about abortion or welfare. Or gay marriages.

Don't forget guns.

exactly the constitution says nothing about welfare or gay marriage, meaning we can have it. and i could EASILY argue FOR both using the amendments

and thats beside the entire question

exactly the constitution says nothing about welfare or gay marriage, meaning we can have it. and i could EASILY argue FOR both using the amendments

and thats beside the entire question
That's a loose constructionist approach. Meaning you go with the ideals of the Constitution, not the precise wording per se. So, anyone who is a crappy citizen is not entitled to the same respect as a real citizen.

The consitution is also silent about lunch.

There isn't one. Just don't expect people to take you seriously about politics thereafter. That's all.
Yep thats it.

Don't forget guns.
not in the constitution proper, but in the amendments there is a thing called the second amendment. Wherein it says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now this can be taken to mean a tank if you want (and under a strict view it definitely means you can own a tank) but it isn't interpreted that way.

Yep thats it.
we could just inject pure surperiority into your ego directly, that would save you the trouble of insulting me every chance you get

we could just inject pure surperiority into your ego directly, that would save you the trouble of insulting me every chance you get
It's only an insult if it's untrue. Did you do your civic duty or not?

not in the constitution proper, but in the amendments there is a thing called the second amendment. Wherein it says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now this can be taken to mean a tank if you want (and under a strict view it definitely means you can own a tank) but it isn't interpreted that way.

*Ahem*

Oddly enough, you can in fact own a tank. Some crazy people do. I refer you to that Dupont loon.

However, it costs a lot of money, and I am not sure if you can use them on the highway or have the weaponary active.

please show me the line in the cosntitution that says you are not entitled to freedom fo speech if you didnt vote, because i dont remember it
If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter.

If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter.
hold on im doing calculations


where do you live

There is, of course, no such language in the US Constitution. However, not voting and then complaining when your candidate loses is quite hypocritical, isn't it?

not in the constitution proper, but in the amendments there is a thing called the second amendment. Wherein it says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now this can be taken to mean a tank if you want (and under a strict view it definitely means you can own a tank) but it isn't interpreted that way.

Not really, the founding fathers differentiated between arms and ordinance. Canons and such were considered ordinance.

Not really, the founding fathers differentiated between arms and ordinance. Canons and such were considered ordinance.

Like I said, you can still have a tank though, funds permitting.

exactly the constitution says nothing about welfare or gay marriage, meaning we can have it. and i could EASILY argue FOR both using the amendments

and thats beside the entire question

The constitution may not specifically mention welfare or gay marriage (and it does mention that we can have guns) but section 8 lists in specific terms exactly what the federal goverment has the authority to do. Transfer payments, be it welfare, social security, or any other wealth re-distribution effort is notably absent from the federal government's authority. Therefore, it is in fact unconstitutional, but active justices have decided that they would rather live in a nation where their whim decides law rather than our constistution. Also note that any authority not given to the federal government is left up to the states under the tenth amendment. This means that gay marriage (or marriage of any type) and abortion should be state issues since they are not included under federal authority.

we could just inject pure surperiority into your ego directly, that would save you the trouble of insulting me every chance you get

You know, you could just not ask the question if you knew you weren't going to like the answer.

I sense that this thread was started because someone made fun of you - rightly so - for not voting. What possible reason could you pull out of your ar - out of thin air, excuse me, for complaining about the system that YOU DON'T PARTICIPATE IN?!

If you COULDN'T vote, because you were underage or are an ex-con, then there's something. But if you DIDN'T because Fear Factor was on, then whatever you have to say about politics must be no more important than the aforemention show - it clearly doesn't mean enough to you to take seriously if you didn't vote.

If you didn't vote because neither of the two major parties tickle your fancy, then I direct you to the homepages of the Communist Party of the United States of America (http://www.cpusa.org/) the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/) and of course to the Green Party (http://www.gp.org/).

The Constitution doesn't forbid political discussion if you decided not to vote.

But that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot for it.

The constitution may not specifically mention welfare or gay marriage (and it does mention that we can have guns) but section 8 lists in specific terms exactly what the federal goverment has the authority to do. Transfer payments, be it welfare, social security, or any other wealth re-distribution effort is notably absent from the federal government's authority. Therefore, it is in fact unconstitutional, but active justices have decided that they would rather live in a nation where their whim decides law rather than our constistution. Also note that any authority not given to the federal government is left up to the states under the tenth amendment. This means that gay marriage (or marriage of any type) and abortion should be state issues since they are not included under federal authority.

What about implied powers? mcculloch v. maryland, splendid baubles, national banks and all that.

There is, of course, no such language in the US Constitution. However, not voting and then complaining when your candidate loses is quite hypocritical, isn't it?
i could care less kerry lost, the pussy wasp robably in cahoots with bush

Are you a strict constructionist? Because the Constitution also says nothing about abortion or welfare. Or gay marriages.

The Constitution doesn't, but I believe the Declaration of Independence says something like all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With regards to abortion, the only way you can get around justifying it is to say that an unborn baby is not a "life".

eat excrements and die !

The constitution may not specifically mention welfare or gay marriage (and it does mention that we can have guns) but section 8 lists in specific terms exactly what the federal goverment has the authority to do. Transfer payments, be it welfare, social security, or any other wealth re-distribution effort is notably absent from the federal government's authority. Therefore, it is in fact unconstitutional, but active justices have decided that they would rather live in a nation where their whim decides law rather than our constistution. Also note that any authority not given to the federal government is left up to the states under the tenth amendment. This means that gay marriage (or marriage of any type) and abortion should be state issues since they are not included under federal authority.
what conservative tripe "activist judges activist judges'

BULL SHIT

every decision is made based on previous cases and interpretation of the law

and activist judge goes both ways bucko

It's only an insult if it's untrue. Did you do your civic duty [voting] or not?

Civic Duty? Voting is not a civic duty. We're Americans damnit, if you don't want to vote, don't. In fact if you don't know about the issues, please, don't vote. 120 million people voted on Tuesday. Do you really think 120 million people made an informed decision about the issues? Absolutely not!! Hopefully 10% of those people were thoroughly informed. One of the great problems of our nation is that too many people vote. Maybe if only those who had significant interest and knowledge in the election voted, then we would have better candidates. Now, I'm not suggesting any voting test or any other requirement to vote. One solution would be to make voting less important by disempowering the government and empowering individuals to take charge of their own lives.

please show me the line in the cosntitution that says you are not entitled to freedom fo speech if you didnt vote, because i dont remember it
No one here is saying you don't have freedom of speech because you did not vote. What we are saying is that if you are complaining about the political state of our country, and did not vote, what you say does not matter. Actions speak louder than words. Just ask 136000 people in Ohio.

I sense that this thread was started because someone made fun of you - rightly so - for not voting. What possible reason could you pull out of your ar - out of thin air, excuse me, for complaining about the system that YOU DON'T PARTICIPATE IN?!
1) my vote doesnt count int he state i live in
2) freedom of speech
3) it has nothing to do about the candidate losing so back to number 2

The Constitution doesn't forbid political discussion if you decided not to vote.

But that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot for it.
and trying to negate every point i have about the government based on i didnt vote is a sad logical fallacy and you and the rest are idiots for using it

No one here is saying you don't have freedom of speech because you did not vote. What we are saying is that if you are complaining about the political state of our country, and did not vote, what you say does not matter. Actions speak louder than words. Just ask 136000 people in Ohio.
and ohio was a SWING state, THEIR vote mattered.

the electoral college provides for an excellent disenfranchisement of MILLIONS of voters.

1) my vote doesnt count int he state i live in
2) freedom of speech
3) it has nothing to do about the candidate losing so back to number 2


and trying to negate every point i have about the government based on i didnt vote is a sad logical fallacy and you and the rest are idiots for using it

So you are a blue in a bright red state? What about your local elections - judgeships, state representative and senators, city and count officials, etc? And do you think the fact that Bush won the popular vote is not significant? I know many people that voted here in Texas, though it was obviously Bush's, simply because they wanted Bush to have a greater legitimacy from popular vote mandate.

what conservative tripe "activist judges activist judges'

BULL SHIT

every decision is made based on previous cases and interpretation of the law

and activist judge goes both ways bucko

Before bursting into rage, read section 8 of the unconstitution. There is no uncertainty about the issue, no interpretation is necessary. The constitution is very clear on what the federal government can do. Basing decisions on previous cases is what has allowed judges to progressively take away individual rights and empower the federal government far beyond what our Founding Fathers ever would have tolerated. The Supreme Court should base decisions on the text of the Constitution, not anything else.

i could care less kerry lost, the pussy wasp robably in cahoots with bush
Just for amusement, did you mean to type that Kerry "was probably" in cahoots with Bush, or were you calling Kerry a "pussy wasp"? :)

So it's a conspiracy now? Belief in conspiracy theories being behind every setback in your life, plus other symptoms your posts have exhibited, adds up to paranoid delusions.

and ohio was a SWING state, THEIR vote mattered.

the electoral college provides for an excellent disenfranchisement of MILLIONS of voters.
Note: there have only been 3 times that the electoral vote has been different from the popular vote. Without the electoral college, the only places that would ever see a candidate for President would be the big cities. And smaller states would be completely shut out. The Electoral college equalizes the will of the people with the individual influence of each state. One could argue that the Senate is an Electoral college of sorts. California, with the largest population, only has 2 senators, and Hawaii, with a much smaller population, has the same, but they both have the same influence in the Senate. That's how the Electoral College was meant to work.

So it's a conspiracy now? Belief in conspiracy theories being behind every setback in your life, plus other symptoms your posts have exhibited, adds up to paranoid delusions.
Good point! Perhaps he was just imagining he was hungry! ;)

Before bursting into rage, read section 8 of the unconstitution. There is no uncertainty about the issue, no interpretation is necessary. The constitution is very clear on what the federal government can do. Basing decisions on previous cases is what has allowed judges to progressively take away individual rights and empower the federal government far beyond what our Founding Fathers ever would have tolerated. The Supreme Court should base decisions on the text of the Constitution, not anything else.

Did I not just point out the Mucculoch decision. Marshall no less. By your reckoning we shouldn't have an air force either.

It takes like 3 minutes to vote. By not voting you're saying to me you don't care about politics, so why should I bother listening to you?

I live in New York, Kerry was going to take the state, so I gave my vote to a 3rd party. Alot of people think it's throwing away your vote to go 3rd party, but this 2 party system we got going on is crap. The only way to change things is to vote. Plus there are a bunch of local elections that are important. Those people have a big impact on the way you live in your town

Just for amusement, did you mean to type that Kerry "was probably" in cahoots with Bush, or were you calling Kerry a "pussy wasp"? :)

So it's a conspiracy now? Belief in conspiracy theories being behind every setback in your life, plus other symptoms your posts have exhibited, adds up to paranoid delusions.

Even though it's hard to tell w/ Chess' posts, I say he had to have meant "was probably". Kerry's a WASC. He's a devout Catholic remember.

1) my vote doesnt count int he state i live in


Yes it does, it's your way of formally registering your disapproval of the other candidate. If you don't vote, it is assumed you tactitly approve of the candiate that won.

Those people in alabama who did go out and vote for kerry, people will take them seriously because they got their dissapproval on the record.

All you really approve of is lunch.

Yes it does, it's your way of formally registering your disapproval of the other candidate. If you don't vote, it is assumed you tactitly approve of the candiate that won.

Those people in alabama who did go out and vote for kerry, people will take them seriously because they got their dissapproval on the record.

All you really approve of is lunch.
"Applause!!!"

It takes like 3 minutes to vote. By not voting you're saying to me you don't care about politics, so why should I bother listening to you?

I live in New York, Kerry was going to take the state, so I gave my vote to a 3rd party. Alot of people think it's throwing away your vote to go 3rd party, but this 2 party system we got going on is crap. The only way to change things is to vote. Plus there are a bunch of local elections that are important. Those people have a big impact on the way you live in your town
I don't think Chess was concerned with any election other than POTUS. It's the only race that included a person he had been indoctrinated into thinking he was supposed to hate.

"Applause!!!"

Thank you.

Free speach?

Free speach is dangerous, it causes one to doubt
Doubt causes us to question authority
Questioning authority causes us to go against the government
Going against the government is treason
Treason is punishable by exile.

Be aware of free speech, nobody wants to be exiled north to the cold cold state, where the people speaks a funny language they call 'alberquerqe'.

not in the constitution proper, but in the amendments there is a thing called the second amendment. Wherein it says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now this can be taken to mean a tank if you want (and under a strict view it definitely means you can own a tank) but it isn't interpreted that way.


An Amendment IS the Constitution proper because it is amending. Usually most people make the distinction you are trying to make by reference to Articles and Amendments. For instance, according to the Articles, U.S. Senators were not elected by the people. The 17th Amendment amended Article 1.

The right to bears arms cannot possibly refer to tanks, because you can't hold a tank. If what you say is true then the 2nd Amendment would have included cannon. Artillary has never been considered an "arm."

Coxia

not in the constitution proper, but in the amendments there is a thing called the second amendment. Wherein it says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now this can be taken to mean a tank if you want (and under a strict view it definitely means you can own a tank) but it isn't interpreted that way.

It can also be taken to mean that you are allowed to keep those things that hang out of your shoulders.


(In case the sarcasm was lost on anyone, this is why I hate when people take a meaning of something and twist it to their own viewpoint to try to prove they are "more right" than anyone else.)

Like I said, you can still have a tank though, funds permitting.Yes, but your right to own a tank does not come under the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, merely your more general and unspecified right to waste your money on whatever you want.

**Strict Constructionists although often confused with Original Intentists are different. A strict constructionist uses the language as written as a guide, an original intentist uses the intention of those who originally wrote the statute as a guide.**

As for the US Constitution and freedom of speech and the right to speak and voting, the right to freedom of speech only applies to government action ("Congress shall make no law. . ."). The right to freedom of speech is not violated by non-governmental bodies imposing a restriction on non-voters voicing opinions, there is no right to freely voice opinions granted in the Constitution to begin with.

The Constitution doesn't, but I believe the Declaration of Independence says something like all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With regards to abortion, the only way you can get around justifying it is to say that an unborn baby is not a "life".
The DoI is just a letter. It has no bearing on government.

exactly the constitution says nothing about welfare or gay marriage, meaning we can have it. and i could EASILY argue FOR both using the amendments



You are not exactly correct here. The U.S. Constitution is not a prohibitory document so that anything not mentioned is allowable, and anything mentioned is prohibited.

The issues involving federalism are a bit more complicated than you imply here.

Coxia

Yes, but your right to own a tank does not come under the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, merely your more general and unspecified right to waste your money on whatever you want.

**Strict Constructionists although often confused with Original Intentists are different. A strict constructionist uses the language as written as a guide, an original intentist uses the intention of those who originally wrote the statute as a guide.**

As for the US Constitution and freedom of speech and the right to speak and voting, the right to freedom of speech only applies to government action ("Congress shall make no law. . ."). The right to freedom of speech is not violated by non-governmental bodies imposing a restriction on non-voters voicing opinions, there is no right to freely voice opinions granted in the Constitution to begin with.

I know that, I was trying to forestall the now inevitable he said she said about the 2nd ammendment, in a thread where the point is to make fun of people who choose lunch over voting then complain.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by strict constructionist. Is that like an interpretivist, a la Black ? I also think that there is a difference between originalism a la Bork and stautory intent too. (Then of course if one goes down the Originalism path does one look to the intent of the framers or the ratifiers?)

The Constitution doesn't, but I believe the Declaration of Independence says something like all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With regards to abortion, the only way you can get around justifying it is to say that an unborn baby is not a "life".

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and is therefore not controlling.

And just in case you plan on mentioning this, the Articles of Confederation are also not controlling because they were superceded by the U.S. Constitution.

Coxia

And just in case you plan on mentioning this, the Articles of Confederation are also not controlling because they were superceded by the U.S. Constitution.


lies :'-(

The DoI is just a letter. It has no bearing on government.
But it does show what the Founding Fathers had in mind for this country before the actual framing of the Constitution. Every state in the country has a law forbidding murder, base on the values and the direction given us by the Founding Fathers as exemplified by that quote. Laws are made based on the morals and values of the people. If most of the the people believe that everyone should be required to vote (which is true in some countries), we pass a law requiring everyone to vote. If everyone believes that murder is wrong, we pass a law forbidding murder.

But it does show what the Founding Fathers had in mind for this country before the actual framing of the Constitution. Every state in the country has a law forbidding murder, base on the values and the direction given us by the Founding Fathers as exemplified by that quote. Laws are made based on the morals and values of the people. If most of the the people believe that everyone should be required to vote (which is true in some countries), we pass a law requiring everyone to vote. If everyone believes that murder is wrong, we pass a law forbidding murder.
Murder laws are done at the state level, not the federal level. The Constitution is the sole document that affects the federal government.

1) my vote doesnt count int he state i live in


That depends on what you mean by "count."

Your vote DOES count in terms of your state's purpose in holding an election for President. The word "count" as you use it should not be used to imply that you are in the minority "therefore my vote doesn't count." Your vote also "counts" in terms of providing/not providing a mandate.

Your vote DOES NOT count in terms of actually electing the President of the United States. But, then, NO ONE'S VOTE counts in those terms except for the 535 Electors who vote on December 13th.

Coxia

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and is therefore not controlling.

And just in case you plan on mentioning this, the Articles of Confederation are also not controlling because they were superceded by the U.S. Constitution.

Coxia
Why would I talk about the Articles of Confederation? You mentioned them, not me. I don't believe the Declaration of Independence has been superseded by anything, though (the American colony of the British Empire?).

Murder laws are done at the state level, not the federal level. The Constitution is the sole document that affects the federal government.
Then why has SCOTUS made it a federal issue by refusing to allow the states to pass laws forbidding the murder, as many people believe, of unborn babies?

Murder laws are done at the state level, not the federal level. The Constitution is the sole document that affects the federal government.

Yah, but if a state repealed murder laws it would run afoul of Palko v. Connecticut and progeny. Probably.

Then why has SCOTUS made it a federal issue by refusing to allow the states to pass laws forbidding the murder, as many people believe, of unborn babies?
Because the judiciary is perverting its role. Because the Judicial Branch has no real check on its power. Because people want abortion to be ok without themselves having to take a stand on it.

That depends on what you mean by "count."

Your vote DOES count in terms of your state's purpose in holding an election for President. The word "count" as you use it should not be used to imply that you are in the minority "therefore my vote doesn't count." Your vote also "counts" in terms of providing/not providing a mandate.

Your vote DOES NOT count in terms of actually electing the President of the United States. But, then, NO ONE'S VOTE counts in those terms except for the 535 Electors who vote on December 13th.

Coxia
538. D.C. gets 3. That's how we can now have electoral ties.

Because the judiciary is perverting its role. Because the Judicial Branch has no real check on its power. Because people want abortion to be ok without themselves having to take a stand on it.
Agreed!

lies :'-(

Then prove its a lie.

I'll be happy to prove the whole reason for holding the Constitutional Convention was precisely to abolish the Articles of Confederation for its gross inefficiencies and impracticalities.

If what I say were not true the then Founders would not have sent the U.S. Constitution to the states' legislatures for ratification, and the anti-Constitutionalists would not have argued against ratification in favor of simply changing the Articles of Confederation.

Maybe we should comprehensively review Constitutional history.

Coxia

Then prove its a lie.

I'll be happy to prove the whole reason for holding the Constitutional Convention was precisely to abolish the Articles of Confederation for its gross inefficiencies and impracticalities.

If what I say were not true the then Founders would not have sent the U.S. Constitution to the states' legislatures for ratification, and the anti-Constitutionalists would not have argued against ratification in favor of simply changing the Articles of Confederation.

Maybe we should comprehensively review Constitutional history.

Coxia
I think the Deacon was being facetious ...?

Why would I talk about the Articles of Confederation? You mentioned them, not me. I don't believe the Declaration of Independence has been superseded by anything, though (the American colony of the British Empire?).

1) I don't know why you would talk about the Articles of Confederation. I was pre-emtping you in case you would.

2) I didn't say the Declaration of Independence has been superceded (if such a thing were even possible).

Coxia

The first amendment guarantees you the right to speak your mind, not the right to be heard.

That depends on what you mean by "count."

Your vote DOES count in terms of your state's purpose in holding an election for President. The word "count" as you use it should not be used to imply that you are in the minority "therefore my vote doesn't count." Your vote also "counts" in terms of providing/not providing a mandate.

Your vote DOES NOT count in terms of actually electing the President of the United States. But, then, NO ONE'S VOTE counts in those terms except for the 535 Electors who vote on December 13th.

Coxia
ACTUALLY, those people who voted in a majority in the state do count, their votes are used to elect the president, those who arnt in the majority have their votes scrapped basically

The first amendment guarantees you the right to speak your mind, not the right to be heard.
It guarantees the federal government will not arrest you for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean people won't laught at you, kick you out of their club, etc.

But it does show what the Founding Fathers had in mind for this country before the actual framing of the Constitution. Every state in the country has a law forbidding murder, base on the values and the direction given us by the Founding Fathers as exemplified by that quote. Laws are made based on the morals and values of the people. If most of the the people believe that everyone should be required to vote (which is true in some countries), we pass a law requiring everyone to vote. If everyone believes that murder is wrong, we pass a law forbidding murder.

What the "Founding Fathers" had in mind for this country is not controlling. The only thing that is controlling is what was actually ratified by the states. If thoughts and intentions are controlling then voting on issues is an irrelevancy.

Coxia

ACTUALLY, those people who voted in a majority in the state do count, their votes are used to elect the president, those who arnt in the majority have their votes scrapped basically
That would be true if you didn't have a popular vote, to confer legitimacy, and if there was only one issue on a ballot.

Then prove its a lie.

I'll be happy to prove the whole reason for holding the Constitutional Convention was precisely to abolish the Articles of Confederation for its gross inefficiencies and impracticalities.

If what I say were not true the then Founders would not have sent the U.S. Constitution to the states' legislatures for ratification, and the anti-Constitutionalists would not have argued against ratification in favor of simply changing the Articles of Confederation.

Maybe we should comprehensively review Constitutional history.

Coxia

See the little face with the tear. It's a joke.

But if you need to review constitutional history, go ahead. I've heard it before though.

At least have the decency to start with Chisholm v. Georgia though. I don't like it when people start at marbury v. madison, it skips some stuff.

While you're at it, what about Prof. Martin Flaherty's point that the articles of confederation were never explicitly repealed.

ACTUALLY, those people who voted in a majority in the state do count, their votes are used to elect the president, those who arnt in the majority have their votes scrapped basically

No, their votes are NOT used to elect the President. The Electors are not bound to vote for the candidate who wins the majority, nor the candidates to whom they are pledged.

Although 26 states have laws on their books that say the Electors must follow the majority or vote the candidate to whom they are pledge, these laws have never been enforced and are blatantly unConstitutional. Many Electors in the past have flipped and voted for a candidate other than their own or the one supported by the majority vote.

Besides, even without flipping, how could the people's votes be used to elect the President when more than one President in our history has been elected just through the statistical anomoly of gaining more Electoral votes than Popular votes?

Coxia

As an outsider to US politics i probably know MORE about what your government does than you do. when someone(i cant remember hisor her online nick at this minute) said about only 10 percent of us citizens undreestanding the issues capaigned upon that person was probably being exceptionaly optimistic.

for instance the war on terror. the US has been attacked once by terrorists and it suddenl;y becomes a huge issue (please note i do feel sorry for the familys of thos who doies on sept11th) where as I a UK citizen has had to spend my whole life under the threat of terroist attack in the main funded by a small proportion of US citizens (yes i am refering to the IRA etc.). i did not expect my country to bomb ireland or invade etc we on the whole delt with the issue by not letting the nutters scare us and removing the main part of terrorism the terror. the average US citizen is not informed about world events in an unbiased manner, for insytance how many TV channels do you have an how many TV operators are there? and the same goes for national press and radio stations. the news you recive is so tainted by extremist views or by downright incorrect reporting its unbelivable (i do watch us tv stations to watch the NFL etc) and just how much of your "popular opinion" and "news" is nothing more than religious frenzy or scare tactics to make you think a certain way.

Yah, but if a state repealed murder laws it would run afoul of Palko v. Connecticut and progeny. Probably.
See this page for info on Palko v Connecticut. It looks like it was later overturned. Palko v Connecticut (http://www.csamerican.com/SC.asp?ref=302+U.S.+319)

No, their votes are NOT used to elect the President. The Electors are not bound to vote for the candidate who wins the majority, nor the candidates to whom they are pledged.

Although 26 states have laws on their books that say the Electors must follow the majority or vote the candidate to whom they are pledge, these laws have never been enforced and are blatantly unConstitutional. Many Electors in the past have flipped and voted for a candidate other than their own or the one supported by the majority vote.

Besides, even without flipping, how could the people's votes be used to elect the President when more than one President in our history has been elected just through the statistical anomoly of gaining more Electoral votes than Popular votes?


which is why it sohuld be removed

which is why it sohuld be removed

Well if we hold an election for that would you vote. Or would you feel thirsty that day?

What the "Founding Fathers" had in mind for this country is not controlling. The only thing that is controlling is what was actually ratified by the states. If thoughts and intentions are controlling then voting on issues is an irrelevancy.

Coxia
SCOTUS constantly uses what the Congress "intended" for a law in interpreting and making its rulings. I believe there are several rulings regarding the "intent" of the framers of the law. SCOTUS has made what the "Founding Fathers" had in mind for this country entirely relevant. I would argue that the most obvious interpretation of what is written should apply, but torturous logic has been applied in many cases to make it seem to say the opposite of what is written.

No, their votes are NOT used to elect the President. The Electors are not bound to vote for the candidate who wins the majority, nor the candidates to whom they are pledged.

Although 26 states have laws on their books that say the Electors must follow the majority or vote the candidate to whom they are pledge, these laws have never been enforced and are blatantly unConstitutional. Many Electors in the past have flipped and voted for a candidate other than their own or the one supported by the majority vote.

Besides, even without flipping, how could the people's votes be used to elect the President when more than one President in our history has been elected just through the statistical anomoly of gaining more Electoral votes than Popular votes?

Coxia
There have only been 3 out of 43 in our history where popular did not match electoral victory. As to the concern over "faithless" electors, that has happened once in this century. The parties choose their electors, and if their party gets the popular vote, their electors get to cast the electoral vote, and thus they have a vested interest in being sure that their electors will vote according to the popular vote. The main point is, THE POPULAR VOTE DETERMINES THE ELECTORS WHO WILL VOTE. A "faithless" elector has NEVER determined the outcome of the Presidency.

Well if we hold an election for that would you vote. Or would you feel thirsty that day?
Hey! Write your own material ;)

See the little face with the tear. It's a joke.

But if you need to review constitutional history, go ahead. I've heard it before though.

At least have the decency to start with Chisholm v. Georgia though. I don't like it when people start at marbury v. madison, it skips some stuff.

While you're at it, what about Prof. Martin Flaherty's point that the articles of confederation were never explicitly repealed.

Chisolm is an interesting case, in so far as it precipitated the 11th Amendment. But, alas, I ask, "So what?" As for Marbury v. Madison, it was hardly seminal. Most Constitutional law classes in law school actually start with Dr. Bonham's Case. In fact, as far as seminality (neologism?) is concerned, one of the biggest arguments the anti-Federalists had against the U.S. Constitution was precisely that document's failure to grant the judiciary the power of judicial review.

I have never been introduced to Prof. Flaherty's work. I'll have to Westlaw him someday. In any event, Contracts do not have to be explicitly repealed in the face of newer contracts addressing the same matter that are subsequently agreed upon by the same parties. It would be impossible for the same parties to expressly agree to be bound by two different contracts addressing the same issues at the same exact time.

Both the AoC and the USCon address methods of governance for the national government. Both documents were agreed upon by the same parties. Common-law traditions have affected, and been affected by, both contracts. How then can the national government be bound by two different contracts that are, or may be, mutually contradictory?

If you know the Flaherty response I'm eager to entertain it here if you wish.

Coxia

Originally Posted by Eudeminea
The first amendment guarantees you the right to speak your mind, not the right to be heard.

Finally, someone has nailed the wording on this issue (in my opinion). I've thought the same thing for as long as I remember... you just managed to put it into better words than me. Curse you, Eudeminea! :cool:

which is why it sohuld be removed

Hardly. Just one night's worth of the evening news is more than enough justification to maintain the Electoral College system.

See this page for info on Palko v Connecticut. It looks like it was later overturned. Palko v Connecticut (http://www.csamerican.com/SC.asp?ref=302+U.S.+319)

Well I was actually thinking repealing the murder laws would run afoul of "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our all our civil and political institutions." [internal citation ommited], but yeah, now I read the case that's just dicta I guess. C'mon, I'm doing this from memory here.

1) I don't know why you would talk about the Articles of Confederation. I was pre-emtping you in case you would.

2) I didn't say the Declaration of Independence has been superceded (if such a thing were even possible).

Coxia
I was "pre-empting" you in case you tried to make such a case. However, a case can be made for law that is determined by extra-Constitutional documents. The term "separation of church and state" is not found anywhere in the Constitution, but is used in SCOTUS rulings. This was taken from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, not the Constitution. I believe the Declaration of Independence can certainly provide at least as much legal guidance as a letter by one of its authors.

Well I was actually thinking repealing the murder laws would run afoul of "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our all our civil and political institutions." [internal citation ommited], but yeah, now I read the case that's just dicta I guess. C'mon, I'm doing this from memory here.
DeaconDave, Coxia = lawyers or law students? Just curious . . .

. . . Because the Judicial Branch has no real check on its power. . . .

What power? The power of the purse or the power to command armies?

The only "power" the Supreme Court has the the power of reason (which has admittedly been lacking) and the willingness of the other branches, or the states, to abide by their decisions.

Neither the President nor Congress HAVE to abide by Supreme Court decisions. Presidents in history have explicitly refused to obey, and Congress has in history disagreed with SCOTUS to the point where they shut them down completely and wouldn't let them hear cases for a period of time.

So, direct your gripes to your elected officials who push their responsibilities off on the Supreme Court so they can wash their hands of unpalatable positions.

What power? The power of the purse or the power to command armies?

The only "power" the Supreme Court has the the power of reason (which has admittedly been lacking) and the willingness of the other branches, or the states, to abide by their decisions.

Neither the President nor Congress HAVE to abide by Supreme Court decisions. Presidents in history have explicitly refused to obey, and Congress has in history disagreed with SCOTUS to the point where they shut them down completely and wouldn't let them hear cases for a period of time.
Their decisions are binding. There is no way to appeal a decision. There is no veto, there is no filibuster, there are no elections.

What power? The power of the purse or the power to command armies?

The only "power" the Supreme Court has the the power of reason (which has admittedly been lacking) and the willingness of the other branches, or the states, to abide by their decisions.

Neither the President nor Congress HAVE to abide by Supreme Court decisions. Presidents in history have explicitly refused to obey, and Congress has in history disagreed with SCOTUS to the point where they shut them down completely and wouldn't let them hear cases for a period of time.
Interesting! What about the states? For example, could Texas continue to pursue enforcement of its sodomy law, in spite of the fact SCOTUS found it unconstitutional? As a practical matter, it would have to have the support of one of the other branches of government (probably the executive), I guess. When did Congress shut down SCOTUS, by the way?

Their decisions are binding.

Not truly binding. Read up on President Andrew Jackson.


There is no way to appeal a decision.

Congress can pass a law that directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision and make the President enforce the decision. They've done it before.


There is no veto, there is no filibuster, there are no elections.

I think our first order of business in this country is review of our American history and Civics highschool classes.

You have every right to be pissed.

Chisolm is an interesting case, in so far as it precipitated the 11th Amendment. But, alas, I ask, "So what?" As for Marbury v. Madison, it was hardly seminal. Most Constitutional law classes in law school actually start with Dr. Bonham's Case. In fact, as far as seminality (neologism?) is concerned, one of the biggest arguments the anti-Federalists had against the U.S. Constitution was precisely that document's failure to grant the judiciary the power of judicial review.

I have never been introduced to Prof. Flaherty's work. I'll have to Westlaw him someday. In any event, Contracts do not have to be explicitly repealed in the face of newer contracts addressing the same matter that are subsequently agreed upon by the same parties. It would be impossible for the same parties to expressly agree to be bound by two different contracts addressing the same issues at the same exact time.

Both the AoC and the USCon address methods of governance for the national government. Both documents were agreed upon by the same parties. Common-law traditions have affected, and been affected by, both contracts. How then can the national government be bound by two different contracts that are, or may be, mutually contradictory?

If you know the Flaherty response I'm eager to entertain it here if you wish.

Coxia


Well I can see things have changed since I took con law. Marbury used to be the first case studied. The judicial review thing. See, Rotunda, Modern Constitutional Law, 5th edition.

The reason why I mention Chisholm is because I like it, and people always leave it out.

Flaherty posed the question that as the UScon never repealed the articles of confederation, and as the states arguably could abide by UScon from within their confines, then were they ever really repealed. (At least I think that was it, it's been a while.) Anyway he didn't hold to the contract view either I don't think. I think he would tell you the UScon is a form of super-statute, and lacks many of the aspects of a contract, e.g. not amenable to rescission etc.

And anyway, as is pointed out in Stone v. Missippi ( I think ) governmental, i.e. state rights, are not bound by contract.

DeaconDave, Coxia = lawyers or law students? Just curious . . .

Bah, reformed lawyer.

Those people have no sense of humor. :mad:

Not truly binding. Read up on President Andrew Jackson.
Let me rephrase, no LEGAL way.

Congress can pass a law that directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision and make the President enforce the decision. They've done it before.
Until that law is also thrown out.

Let me rephrase, no LEGAL way.


Until that law is also thrown out.
Unless Congress forbids SCOTUS from meeting, which, according to Coxia, they have done before.

DeaconDave, Coxia = lawyers or law students? Just curious . . .

I invoke my Fifth-Amendment right and refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

:D

Bah, reformed lawyer.

Those people have no sense of humor. :mad:
Welcome back to the human race. ;)

I invoke my Fifth-Amendment right and refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

:D
Typical lawyer double-speak . . . ;)

I invoke my Fifth-Amendment right and refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

:D

Okay, we grant you immunity. Now you have to testify. :)

Okay, we grant you immunity. Now you have to testify. :)
Immunity from what? There is no quarter given in these forums! Now that immunity is given, you must testify, or you will be held in contempt of court, and put in prison for 99 years.
:)

Interesting! What about the states? For example, could Texas continue to pursue enforcement of its sodomy law, in spite of the fact SCOTUS found it unconstitutional? As a practical matter, it would have to have the support of one of the other branches of government (probably the executive), I guess. When did Congress shut down SCOTUS, by the way?

The state thing has never been tried. I would argue that having no real enforcement power it would be nearly impossible for SCOTUS to enforce Lawrence v. Texas. If the makeup of the Supreme Court changes during Bush's tenure and we get more Federalist justices like Thomas and Scalia, one way to get Lawrence overturned would be for Texas to enforce its sodomy laws.

I'm at work so I can't do an in depth research on Congress shutting down the Supreme Court. But, I know two times explicitly right of the top of my head.

The first was right after Marbury v. Madison when the Democratic Republicans swept in with Jefferson and shut down the SCOTUS for an entire year.

The second time was when President Johnson began obstructing the Reconstructionist Congress. Johnson felt they were over-shooting their power and interfering with the Executive Branch. The Supreme Court agreed with him. So, Congress shut down the Supreme Court and impeached Johnson. Sort of an, "Oh, Yeah?! We'll see whose boss!" kind of attitude.

I would love to continue on, but I'm at work and I have to get busy.

Welcome back to the human race. ;)

My apologies to DD. I didn't see his emoticon originally.

Immunity from what? There is no quarter given in these forums! Now that immunity is given, you must testify, or you will be held in contempt of court, and put in prison for 99 years.
:)

Well once immunity is granted, a defendant loses fifth ammendment priviledge.

So if we grant coxia immunity, you should get your question answered.

Well I can see things have changed since I took con law. Marbury used to be the first case studied. The judicial review thing. See, Rotunda, Modern Constitutional Law, 5th edition.



I had Rotunda, but I think that was intro to ConLaw as part of my PoliSci undergrad. I'm positive I didn't have Rotunda in lawschool, but I don't remember who edited our book.

Technically our book also started with Marbury. But, it precipitated that case with a whole section on the history of judicial review in Anglo-American common law, and I explicitly remember reading, and including in our class recitation, Lord Coke's Dr. Bonham's Case and its particulars.

Ok, later.

Their decisions are binding. There is no way to appeal a decision. There is no veto, there is no filibuster, there are no elections.

Neither American nor a constitutional expert, so maybe I'm talking out of my arse here, but it is not the case that, at least as regards the USA if not the individual states, Congress is Sovereign? and, in exercising its sovereignty, Congress can simply legislate SCOTUS out of existence at any time it chooses, if it can summon a large enough majority of its members for the necessary ammendment to the USCon? If that is the case, then simply ignoring or overriding SCOTUS seems pretty small fry.

Neither American nor a constitutional expert, so maybe I'm talking out of my arse here, but it is not the case that, at least as regards the USA if not the individual states, Congress is Sovereign? and, in exercising its sovereignty, Congress can simply legislate SCOTUS out of existence at any time it chooses, if it can summon a large enough majority of its members for the necessary ammendment to the USCon? If that is the case, then simply ignoring or overriding SCOTUS seems pretty small fry.
There is no way that Congress would ever outlaw the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would just overturn that law :p And Congress isn't sovereign, the SCOTUS can overturn any law that comes before it, if it wants to.

I had Rotunda, but I think that was intro to ConLaw as part of my PoliSci undergrad. I'm positive I didn't have Rotunda in lawschool, but I don't remember who edited our book.

Technically our book also started with Marbury. But, it precipitated that case with a whole section on the history of judicial review in Anglo-American common law, and I explicitly remember reading, and including in our class recitation, Lord Coke's Dr. Bonham's Case and its particulars.

Ok, later.

Well casebooks are casebooks. I didn't care for rotunda.

Murphy et al, interpreting the constitution is much better.

Not that I ever used any of that crap.

Neither American nor a constitutional expert, so maybe I'm talking out of my arse here, but it is not the case that, at least as regards the USA if not the individual states, Congress is Sovereign? and, in exercising its sovereignty, Congress can simply legislate SCOTUS out of existence at any time it chooses, if it can summon a large enough majority of its members for the necessary ammendment to the USCon? If that is the case, then simply ignoring or overriding SCOTUS seems pretty small fry.
Congress is not sovereign. There are three branches of government, none of which may trespass (supposedly, but they do sometimes) on the powers of the other:
Executive: power to enforce the law (President).
Legislative: power to make law (Congress).
Judicial: power to interpret the law (Supreme Court) - can declare laws unconstitutional.

Executive can override Legislative by vetoing a law, Legislative can override Executive by passing a law with a 2/3 majority in both houses, Judicial can override Legislative by declaring a law unconstitutional, Legislative can override Judicial by passing a Constitutional amendment (very difficult, need 2/3 in both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures must approve).

You have every right to be taken even more serious about life than those that play into politics and belittle themselves to immature control freaks. Don't dispair, do you believe Jesus would play into the immaturity of politics? If you notice that the people that stay away from politics are much more happier and content about there lives and every person around them. Even the immature brats that want to control the sand box are loved by these everlasting happy people. Heck it actually shows how smart you are chess by not being played by the politcs, KUDOS! It might seem hard because at first I even thought I enjoyed the idea of having control over someone other than myself at first as well, now I know life rules when you are indapendantly wealthy with love. There is plenty of love to go around and I am a sharing person not a controlling one. I get that from my father. Its not about getting what you want, its about wanting what you got.

Congress is not sovereign...

...Legislative can override Judicial by passing a Constitutional amendment (very difficult, need 2/3 in both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures must approve).

QED!

I know it is reducing the point to an implausible absurdity, but if (assuming the necessary majorities, concurrence of the states' legislatures, no executive veto, etc) an ammendment to the USCon is passed to terminate SCOTUS, then SCOTUS would cease to exist at that point. Everything and anything in the USCon (SCOTUS, POTUS, the citizens' sacred right to shoot deer and petrol station attendants with armour-piercing bullets) can be ammended or removed. Theoretically, Congress could even repeal the entire constituion (and thereby presumably simultaneously voting itself out of existence). Therefore, as the sole body able to ammend the USCon I would argue Congress IS sovereign.

Did I not just point out the Mucculoch decision. Marshall no less. By your reckoning we shouldn't have an air force either.

That's what amending the Constitution is for

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by strict constructionist. Is that like an interpretivist, a la Black ? I also think that there is a difference between originalism a la Bork and stautory intent too. (Then of course if one goes down the Originalism path does one look to the intent of the framers or the ratifiers?)
Strict constructionism is based on the concept of legal positivism. A strict constructist is one who holds that the law is the law as written, regardless of the intent of the writer, so if they screw up and write something other than they intended (which actually happens more often than you might think), that which is written is what becomes the law. With regards to the 2nd amendment a strict constructionist might hold that while the framers may have intended it only to apply to personal arms, by writing it as "arms" instead of "personal arms" they have written it in a manner which includes nuclear warheads, so although they intended it to only apply to personal arms it does in fact apply to all arms. Also with regards to the 2nd amendment we find the word militia, which in time of the writing was a word meaning all of the men capable of bearing arms, not a collection of men under any sort of muster, those who focus on strict construction use the more modern meaning of "militia" to argue that regardless of the intent of the framers the inclusion of the word "mlitia" means that the "right to bear arms" is a collective right not an individual right.

Bork is a original intentist with a twist, but he does not approve of strict constructionism, in fact he has rejected it.

QED!

I know it is reducing the point to an implausible absurdity, but if (assuming the necessary majorities, concurrence of the states' legislatures, no executive veto, etc) an ammendment to the USCon is passed to terminate SCOTUS, then SCOTUS would cease to exist at that point. Everything and anything in the USCon (SCOTUS, POTUS, the citizens' sacred right to shoot deer and petrol station attendants with armour-piercing bullets) can be ammended or removed. Theoretically, Congress could even repeal the entire constituion (and thereby presumably simultaneously voting itself out of existence). Therefore, as the sole body able to ammend the USCon I would argue Congress IS sovereign.It's pretty well estabished that the original soverign of the US is the citizens, and the US soverignity is a derived soverignity ganted to it from the original soverign, limited and bound. When the amendment procedure is exercised, it is the original soverign reasserting its power, using its mechanisms (state legislatures and US congress and constitutional conventions) to exercise it's original soverignity, not the congresss using it's derived soverignity.

There is, of course, no such language in the US Constitution. However, not voting and then complaining when your candidate loses is quite hypocritical, isn't it?

Hmm. Even when your state went to your candidate, and was clearly going to from the beginning?

I'm not sure how many times Chess Squares has explained this, but I know I've seen it at least once.