NationStates Jolt Archive

Many have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, with regards to some Amendments to the U.S. Constitution being "UnConstitutional" and point to the fact that they cannot "overturn" an Amendment...

And while it may be "technically" true that the Supreme Court is not given a Constitutional ability to strike down a Constitutional Amendment, they ARE tasked with judging the "Constitutionality" of ANY LAW that is derived from ANY Amendment.

So, while they CANNOT strike down an Amendment, they CAN make an Amendment basically "toothless" through the precedence of the Rule of Law in our Country.

In this way, the Supreme Court not only can but HAS made certain Laws toothless in the past by ruling against the Constitutionality of the Law.

Isn't "Checks and Balances" a wonderful thing! :D

Perhaps any one of the people railing on about my being an "uneducated" IDIOT would like to address any of this?

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Ga


Is there a thesis to that whole post?
Lets try to parse it out...

A) Amendments can be overturned by new amendments.
B) Laws can be rules unconstitutional by the supreme court.
c) Legislative action can create new amendments that make unconstitutional laws constitutional.

That's checks and balances, its a decent system.

Is there a thesis to that whole post?
Lets try to parse it out...

A) Amendments can be overturned by new amendments.
B) Laws can be rules unconstitutional by the supreme court.
c) Legislative action can create new amendments that make unconstitutional laws constitutional.

That's checks and balances, its a decent system.

Perhaps the example I just used in the "Presidential term Limits" Thread would be a good example.

I'll re-post the question here...

What do YOU believe would happen if...(now I'm not saying this would have any chance of happening, but merely use it in the hypothetical)

What do you think the Supreme Court, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter, would do if George W. Bush WON the next Election?

What do YOU think ANYONE would do against the WILL of the People?

Let us say, for arguments sake, that some event were to propel the President's popularity THROUGH THE ROOF just before the next Election and the People WRITE IN Bush as their choice. Let's "pretend" that over 70% of the People VOTE for Bush...

What does ANYONE think the Supreme Court would do?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

I'm fairly confident that george w bush (or bill clinton) wouldnt find himself on any ballots and that the question is absurd to the point of being trivial.

A better example would be "what would happen if the supreme court ruled that the second amendment only protected the right to own pocket knives."

To which I would answer, lawbreakers would act in contempt of court and the rule of law and eventually a new amendment would be passed which specifically guaranteed the right to own firearms.

Is there a thesis to that whole post?
Lets try to parse it out...

A) Amendments can be overturned by new amendments.
B) Laws can be rules unconstitutional by the supreme court.
c) Legislative action can create new amendments that make unconstitutional laws constitutional.

That's checks and balances, its a decent system.


Was going to post something simular to this. Although this is well put and will have to agree with your statement.

It is also important to note that in cases where more than one Amendment is in conflict with eachother, the SUpreme Court has the decision on which takes precedence.

So, for instance, if there ever were a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage(which will never happen), the Supreme Court would have to decide if that is a law regarding an establishment of religion(First Amendment).

I'm fairly confident that george w bush (or bill clinton) wouldnt find himself on any ballots and that the question is absurd to the point of being trivial.

A better example would be "what would happen if the supreme court ruled that the second amendment only protected the right to own pocket knives."

To which I would answer, lawbreakers would act in contempt of court and the rule of law and eventually a new amendment would be passed which specifically guaranteed the right to own firearms.

Interesting that I even SAID that 70% would WRITE HIM IN and YOU just change the subject...

Something about a hypothetical YOU don't get?

Mind addressing the question, rather than "make-up" your OWN?!?!

Or is it that you CAN'T address the question in the terms YOU have given to the subject?

I believe I even SAID I didn't believe it was all that possible, but to dismiss that it MAY happen at all is a bit of the other extreme, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Is there a thesis to that whole post?
Lets try to parse it out...

A) Amendments can be overturned by new amendments.
B) Laws can be rules unconstitutional by the supreme court.
c) Legislative action can create new amendments that make unconstitutional laws constitutional.

That's checks and balances, its a decent system.

This post provides hope for the future of intelligent discourse in the NS world. Succinct and relevant without partisan drivel. Thank you

Interesting that I even SAID that 70% would WRITE HIM IN and YOU just change the subject...

Something about a hypothetical YOU don't get?

Mind addressing the question, rather than "make-up" your OWN?!?!

Or is it that you CAN'T address the question in the terms YOU have given to the subject?

I believe I even SAID I didn't believe it was all that possible, but to dismiss that it MAY happen at all is a bit of the other extreme, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar


On the other hand. . . .

A hypothetical question that is absurd to the point of being trivial is just that.

Devoid of practical relevance.

You may as well have asked "what would the surpeme court do if the aliens came and turned the vice president into a frog that could talk but not write, would he still be constitutionally fit to be vice president and what if the congress disagreed with the supreme court, and what if the chief justice got turned into a frog too, who would judge his competence?

Perhaps the example I just used in the "Presidential term Limits" Thread would be a good example.

I'll re-post the question here...

What do YOU believe would happen if...(now I'm not saying this would have any chance of happening, but merely use it in the hypothetical)

What do you think the Supreme Court, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter, would do if George W. Bush WON the next Election?

What do YOU think ANYONE would do against the WILL of the People?

Let us say, for arguments sake, that some event were to propel the President's popularity THROUGH THE ROOF just before the next Election and the People WRITE IN Bush as their choice. Let's "pretend" that over 70% of the People VOTE for Bush...

What does ANYONE think the Supreme Court would do?!?!

Regards,
Gaar
They would simply swear in the candidate with next highest number of electoral votes.

A hypothetical question that is absurd to the point of being trivial is just that.

Devoid of practical relevance.

You may as well have asked "what would the surpeme court do if the aliens came and turned the vice president into a frog that could talk but not write, would he still be constitutionally fit to be vice president and what if the congress disagreed with the supreme court, and what if the chief justice got turned into a frog too, who would judge his competence?

OK, take Bush out of the equation...

Let's say we had a 2 Term President that is coming up on the end of his Presidency and suddenly we are ATTACKED!

And what if the People felt that the sitting President was the "Best Man" for Leading us through a Declared War against a Foreign Power?

Is that "possible" enough for YOU to comment on now?

Why is it people need to change the subject, and not address a candid question?

Perhaps because they don’t like the answer they have, or don’t have?

Regards,
Gaar

They would simply swear in the candidate with next highest number of electoral votes.

Ok, so YOU say...

And what do they do when someone CHALLENGES that decision, by citing their Constitutional Right to Freedom of Choice?

Or are you going to say that, since no such Right is given by the Constitution?

Or that an Amendment has "taken" that Right from me?

I believe YOU are WRONG!

Regards,
Gaar

Ga



I'll defer to etrusca's capable reply of "the court would swear in the candidate with the second-highest electoral vote count."

Writing in an ineligible candidate (be it a two term president or vladimir putin or jesus) would be the same as not voting at all. We are a nation under the rule of law, and the law is very clear about who can and cannot serve as president.

But recall, since this situation is absurd, conclusions relevant to possible and probable events cannot be drawn.

They would simply swear in the candidate with next highest number of electoral votes.

And again, in the hypothetical...

What if NO one else received ANY Electoral Votes?

Or is that too "far fetched" to be considered, by you?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

OK, take Bush out of the equation...

Let's say we had a 2 Term President that is coming up on the end of his Presidency and suddenly we are ATTACKED!

And what if the People felt that the sitting President was the "Best Man" for Leading us through a Declared War against a Foreign Power?

Is that "possible" enough for YOU to comment on now?

Why is it people need to change the subject, and not address a candid question?

Perhaps because they don’t like the answer they have, or don’t have?

Regards,
Gaar
It wouldn't even go the supreme court, as those votes for whoever wouldn't be valid, so the person who clears the barrier for the electoral votes would be sworn in.

I'm fairly confident that george w bush (or bill clinton) wouldnt find himself on any ballots and that the question is absurd to the point of being trivial.

A better example would be "what would happen if the supreme court ruled that the second amendment only protected the right to own pocket knives."

To which I would answer, lawbreakers would act in contempt of court and the rule of law and eventually a new amendment would be passed which specifically guaranteed the right to own firearms.

Eventually is right, after thousands of people are sent to federal prisons for having in their possession illegal firearms, or banned bullets (which would of course be all of them).

Urantia, in response to your question, what would the supreme court do? You mean besides being defunct? "Dubya" would become the first emperor in a line of royalty in the Empire the United States of America. A corporate police state, where every corporation bows to the wishes of the Emperor in order to be able to sell, and police on every corner in order to "protect" us from each other. Guns are now banned, as New Granada pointed out, in order to "keep the peace" and "Dubya" would pass all sorts of vicious so-called "faith based initiatives" which take the Bill of Rights out of the picture completely. Welcome to the world overrun by our checks and balances.

You seem to forget urantia that the supreme court has established a legal precedent which discounts the 'freedom of choice' - namely the 2000 election where the electoral college was upheld to be more important than the will of the majority of voters.

It wouldn't even go the supreme court, as those votes for whoever wouldn't be valid, so the person who clears the barrier for the electoral votes would be sworn in.

And if I challenge the Right of the "State" to Invalidate my "Free Will Choice"?!?!

No one thinks that 70% of the People might be just a bit upset that their CHOICE was rendered "invalid"?

Huh, Judge's seem to be getting "challenged" on things MUCH LESS important than the People's WILL, and YOU ALL think they would be willing to subvert the WILL of 70% of the People...

That interests me.

Regards,
Gaar

Ga


The rule of law is the rule of law, and as I mentioned above, subverting the will of the majority of voters is a precedent upheld recently.

You seem to forget urantia that the supreme court has established a legal precedent which discounts the 'freedom of choice' - namely the 2000 election where the electoral college was upheld to be more important than the will of the majority of voters.

And?

The Electoral College is how WE CHOOSE a President.

Something about THAT YOU don't get?

Something about the "Will of the People, as it relates to the "State that they live", YOU don't understand?

States Right's HAVE to be considered SOMEWHERE, do they not?

30 of 50 States SHOULD MEAN something, should it not?

Regards,
Gaar

And?

The Electoral College is how WE CHOOSE a President.

Something about THAT YOU don't get?

Something about the "Will of the People, as it relates to the "State that they live", YOU don't understand?

States Right's HAVE to be considered SOMEWHERE, do they not?

30 of 50 States SHOULD MEAN something, should it not?

Regards,
Gaar
Except it doesn't, as about 10-11 states can overrule the wishes of the rest.

And if I challenge the Right of the "State" to Invalidate my "Free Will Choice"?!?!

No one thinks that 70% of the People might be just a bit upset that their CHOICE was rendered "invalid"?

Huh, Judge's seem to be getting "challenged" on things MUCH LESS important than the People's WILL, and YOU ALL think they would be willing to subvert the WILL of 70% of the People...

That interests me.

Regards,
Gaar
Then change the bloody constitution. If you want to keep the blacks as a slave, change the constitution. If you want to kill the queers, change the constitution. Until then, don't whine about "will of the people" if you can't mount enough votes to change the constitution.

The rule of law is the rule of law, and as I mentioned above, subverting the will of the majority of voters is a precedent upheld recently.

Perhaps in YOUR MIND...

But that is merely an OPINION that can be OPPOSED with not only another OPINION, but the FACTS as well...

Something about the Electoral College and how it works that YOU don't get?

What about the MAJORITY of STATES that the Majority of People in each voted for?

Regards,
Gaar

How can the Consitution, the main document which declares others unconstitutional, be unconstitutional itself? Impossible! This is conflicting. My brain halves have merged. No no. Red are sheep *dissolves*

Just to make this clear. A response of 70% "writing in" a candidate would almost certainly be partnered by some form of public media campaign, to make sure everyone does it. In which case, those in power would react pre-emptively, probably by announcing that any such ballots would be declared "spoiled" under law. Plus, you have to factor in the number of people voting by ballot machine, where it is impossible to add your own choice.

Then change the bloody constitution. If you want to keep the blacks as a slave, change the constitution. If you want to kill the queers, change the constitution. Until then, don't whine about "will of the people" if you can't mount enough votes to change the constitution.

MY POINT IS...

We DON'T NEED TO!

It would be "changed" just by the challenge...

A LEGAL precedent would be set.

The MAJORITY can make all the Laws and Amendments they like, it is the ENFORCING THEM that really matters.

And hence my point about the Supreme Courts ability to make an Amendment "UnConstitutional"...

Regards,
Gaar

Ga


The 'arguement' that the electoral college is how we "CHOOSE(sic)" our president bolsters the idea that "the rule of law is the framework within which we choose our president"

the laws of the land state that the electoral college has precedence over the will of the voters and also that a president may only serve two terms.

If the country wanted a president to serve a third term, and indeed 70% of the population expressed that wish, a constitutional amendment would be required and certainly plausible.

That, along with the electoral college, is in line with the rule of law in the united states.

MY POINT IS...

We DON'T NEED TO!

It would be "changed" just by the challenge...

A LEGAL precedent would be set.

The MAJORITY can make all the Laws and Amendments they like, it is the ENFORCING THEM that really matters.

And hence my point about the Supreme Courts ability to make an Amendment "UnConstitutional"...

Regards,
Gaar
First, quit with the capitalization of random words. It's annoying. Second, an amendment can't be unconstitional by definition, once it is part of the constitution.

Just to make this clear. A response of 70% "writing in" a candidate would almost certainly be partnered by some form of public media campaign, to make sure everyone does it. In which case, those in power would react pre-emptively, probably by announcing that any such ballots would be declared "spoiled" under law. Plus, you have to factor in the number of people voting by ballot machine, where it is impossible to add your own choice.

Only practically impossible.

First, quit with the capitalization of random words. It's annoying. Second, an amendment can't be unconstitional by definition, once it is part of the constitution.

But it can, later, by The Supreme Court. Remember Prohibition?

Just to make this clear. A response of 70% "writing in" a candidate would almost certainly be partnered by some form of public media campaign, to make sure everyone does it. In which case, those in power would react pre-emptively, probably by announcing that any such ballots would be declared "spoiled" under law. Plus, you have to factor in the number of people voting by ballot machine, where it is impossible to add your own choice.

Something about a "hypothetical" that people around here don't get?

And if you are unable to "write in" a candidate on a "Ballot Machine" then I believe all you need to do is ask for a "Provisional Ballot" and not Vote by Machine, which is supposed to be available at ALL Polling places.

Regards,
Gaar

The 'arguement' that the electoral college is how we "CHOOSE(sic)" our president bolsters the idea that "the rule of law is the framework within which we choose our president"

the laws of the land state that the electoral college has precedence over the will of the voters and also that a president may only serve two terms.

If the country wanted a president to serve a third term, and indeed 70% of the population expressed that wish, a constitutional amendment would be required and certainly plausible.

That, along with the electoral college, is in line with the rule of law in the united states.

Perhaps...

But it is my belief that just the ACT of Electing a 3rd term President would be enough to overturn the Amendment, and hence my belief that it is UnConstitutional.

Just because it hasn't been challenged and a decision rendered that it IS UnConstitutional doesn't mean that it can't be or isn't, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

But it can, later, by The Supreme Court. Remember Prohibition?


Prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment to the constitution.

Prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment to the constitution.
.

And if I challenge the Right of the "State" to Invalidate my "Free Will Choice"?!?!

No one thinks that 70% of the People might be just a bit upset that their CHOICE was rendered "invalid"?

Huh, Judge's seem to be getting "challenged" on things MUCH LESS important than the People's WILL, and YOU ALL think they would be willing to subvert the WILL of 70% of the People...

That interests me.

Regards,
Gaar

People would be very upset, but it wouldn't make their votes valid. Under the current laws they votes simply could not be counted. But that does not mean that it's over and that person will never see the oval office again! I suspect that in the aftermath of the election a constitutional amendment would be passed very quickly. It would specifically allow a president two terms in office. Popular support would be there for sure, so it'd pass easily. This popular support also leads us to wonder what would be done with the election's results.

The question is whether there would be a recount or a whole new vote after that amendment was passed. There would certainly be a demand for it, so I'm leaning toward yes. If there were a recount then the last president in office would win his third term. If the votes were already deemed invalid and thrown out right after the election then they'd really have no choice but to do a new vote. Although I'm not sure how this would be possible with electronic voting machines. Wouldn't they be able to back up the results? Or is that all deleted? That information is probably secret. But if they had to do a new vote I wouldn't want to be around to see it. 70% of the country would vote for the last president (I doubt it'd be that high, a lot of people would vote for the new preisdent simply because they feel that the constitutional amendment was a really bad idea.) and the 30% that voted for the other guy would feel as if their votes were just rendered irrelevent. Their guy, who was elected to office under the laws that were in action during the first election, would be thought of as the 'more' legitimate leader. Maybe not the popular one, but the legitimate one. Then you'd have your sound majority of 60% or 70% saying that everything that was done was legal and that the president they had to vote for twice was the true winner of the elections. Both sides would be left unimaginably bitter toward each other. If you think that Kerry supporters being angry over Bush winning was nasty you haven't seen anything yet.

That would be a horrible senario. Let's hope it never happens.

Edit.

Just to make this clear. A response of 70% "writing in" a candidate would almost certainly be partnered by some form of public media campaign, to make sure everyone does it. In which case, those in power would react pre-emptively, probably by announcing that any such ballots would be declared "spoiled" under law. Plus, you have to factor in the number of people voting by ballot machine, where it is impossible to add your own choice.

Good point. I didn't think of it that way. Of course the other party, who ever that is, would fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening. Who knows how that would turn out?

Perhaps...

But it is my belief that just the ACT of Electing a 3rd term President would be enough to overturn the Amendment, and hence my belief that it is UnConstitutional.

Just because it hasn't been challenged and a decision rendered that it IS UnConstitutional doesn't mean that it can't be or isn't, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

No it wouldn't. If 3/4ths of the states do it, maybe, but only if they go through the process of repealing the amendment restricting presidents to two terms, which they most likely would do first. 51% of the electoral votes isn't enough to overturn an amendment, and thats all it takes to reelect a president.

Except it doesn't, as about 10-11 states can overrule the wishes of the rest.

Actually, I believe it is 13 and they would HAVE to be the 13 MOST Populous States...

And THEN a Majority of the PEOPLE WOULD overrule the WILL of the Majority of the States...

Which isn't a bad thing, in my mind... Since it can "work" either way it is not "skewed" to favor one over the other, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Ga

Educate yourself (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=unconstitutional, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law)


That point aside, breaking a law does not invalidate a law.
So far american legal precedent says that the rule of law trumps decisions made by the public which are not in accordance with the laws.

Ie, when the public voted to elect gore but bush was made president, no law was broken, only the hypothetical "right to choose." When liquor was prohibited, even though the prohibition was unpopular, it was still enforced because it was still a law.

A constitutional amendment is repealed by another constitutional amendment, it is impossible for an amendment to be "UnConstitional(sic)," a contradiction in terms.

Interesting that I even SAID that 70% would WRITE HIM IN and YOU just change the subject...

Something about a hypothetical YOU don't get?

Mind addressing the question, rather than "make-up" your OWN?!?!

Or is it that you CAN'T address the question in the terms YOU have given to the subject?

I believe I even SAID I didn't believe it was all that possible, but to dismiss that it MAY happen at all is a bit of the other extreme, is it not?
Urantia II, address the issues, not the poster. Your continuing use of "YOU don't get?" and "you CAN'T address the question" is an ad hominem attack and not an actual argument. You're pushing the edges of flaming with this. Find a less confrontation style before you cross that line.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team
Regards,
Gaar
Also, while this isn't illegal, it's certainly annoying. Your nationname appears to the left of every post, and your signature appears below every post (if you have your settings set to show them). Is it necessary to sign them again?

No it wouldn't. If 3/4ths of the states do it, maybe, but only if they go through the process of repealing the amendment restricting presidents to two terms, which they most likely would do first. 51% of the electoral votes isn't enough to overturn an amendment, and thats all it takes to reelect a president.

And in MY "Hypothetical" I "gave" ALL 50 States with 70% of the Electorate voting for "him"...

Want to address THAT hypothetical, or continue to "make-up" your own?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, I believe it is 13 and they would HAVE to be the 13 MOST Populous States...

And THEN a Majority of the PEOPLE WOULD overrule the WILL of the Majority of the States...

Which isn't a bad thing, in my mind... Since it can "work" either way it is not "skewed" to favor one over the other, right?

Regards,
Gaar
Wrong again. 50.1% of those 13 states would be less then a quarter of the people of the United States.

And in MY "Hypothetical" I "gave" ALL 50 States with 70% of the Electorate voting for "him"...

Want to address THAT hypothetical, or continue to "make-up" your own?

Regards,
Gaar
It wouldn't be legal. Their votes wouldn't be counted as legal, and they should have passed the amendment before the election.

And in MY "Hypothetical" I "gave" ALL 50 States with 70% of the Electorate voting for "him"...

Want to address THAT hypothetical, or continue to "make-up" your own?

Regards,
Gaar


Your hypothetical question has been responded to at least five times and you've not yet made a cogent reply to any of the responses or their follow-ups.

Urantia II, address the issues, not the poster. Your continuing use of "YOU don't get?" and "you CAN'T address the question" is an ad hominem attack and not an actual argument. You're pushing the edges of flaming with this. Find a less confontation style before you cross that line.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Also, while this isn't illegal, it's certainly annoying. Your nationname appears to the left of every post, and your signature appears below every post (if you have your settings set to show them). Is it necessary to sign them again?

Is this a warning or a request?

Because I SEE many people "sign" their posts, as well as ask if the person to whom they are talking understands what it is they have said.

So why am I being singled out for such behavior?

By the way... My "name" is not "Urantia II", it is Gaar.

Regards,
Gaar

And in MY "Hypothetical" I "gave" ALL 50 States with 70% of the Electorate voting for "him"...

Want to address THAT hypothetical, or continue to "make-up" your own?

Regards,
Gaar


Your hypothetical question has been responded to at least five times and you've not yet made a cogent reply to any of the responses or their follow-ups.

Urantia II, address the issues, not the poster. Your continuing use of "YOU don't get?" and "you CAN'T address the question" is an ad hominem attack and not an actual argument. You're pushing the edges of flaming with this. Find a less confontation style before you cross that line.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Also, while this isn't illegal, it's certainly annoying. Your nationname appears to the left of every post, and your signature appears below every post (if you have your settings set to show them). Is it necessary to sign them again?

Is this a warning or a request?

And why do I not see people warned who ACTUALLY attack ME personally?

Because I SEE many people "sign" their posts, as well as ask if the person to whom they are talking understands what it is they have said. Or is it that you are only referring to the times in which I contend that they are unable to answer the question?

I also find it quite interesting that YOU YOURSELF have a “signature” on your posts that basically says the same thing as what is to the left of the post. Isn’t that exactly what YOU are faulting ME for? (I apologize in advance for stating that as a question).

So why am I being singled out for such behavior?

Or is it ok for some to question my Education and call me an Idiot but not ok for me to question their understanding?

By the way... My "name" is not "Urantia II", it is Gaar.

Regards,
Gaar

And in MY "Hypothetical" I "gave" ALL 50 States with 70% of the Electorate voting for "him"...

Want to address THAT hypothetical, or continue to "make-up" your own?

Regards,
Gaar

I did address it. I gave what i thought would be the most likely response to your hypothetical situation. What you dont seem to realise is that hypothetical questions necessitate hypothetical answers, just because its not your answer, doesnt make it invalid. My point is as valid as yours, as are all the others, as there are NO facts to confirm either. Its all theoretical extrapolation based on current views/political environment

*snip*

And just to be clear, I believe you are wrong...

I believe that a CHALLENGE would be made in the Supreme Court and the 22nd Amendment would be ruled UnConstitutional and the results of the Election would stand.

But you are free to have any OPINION you would like, just as I am.

That doesn't make either of them Right or Wrong.

I just wanted to make the point that the Supreme Court could IN FACT rule that a Constitutional Amendment was UnConstitutional.

Regards,
Gaar

I did address it. I gave what i thought would be the most likely response to your hypothetical situation.

No, I'm sorry...

You "changed" MY hypothetical 70% to 51%...

So how was that addressing MY Hypothetical, instead of just making up your own?

Regards,
Gaar

No, I'm sorry...

You "changed" MY hypothetical 70% to 51%...

So how was that addressing MY Hypothetical, instead of just making up your own?

Regards,
Gaar

I think you're confusing me with someone else. :rolleyes:

Edit: And please, so i dont get drawn into such a debate, Im not defunking the possibility of your views. Im just expressing the belief that mine are more likely. :D as is everyone. Thats the point of a debate.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. :rolleyes:

Ok, I apologize...

Being "attacked" from many sides here, including a Moderator, so you will have to forgive me if I am responding to posts as quickly as I am able and confuse one or two.

Or you don't HAVE to forgive me, either way.

Regards,
Gaar

Ok, I apologize...

Being "attacked" from many sides here, including a Moderator, so you will have to forgive me if I am responding to posts as quickly as I am able and confuse one or two.

Or you don't HAVE to forgive me, either way.

Regards,
Gaar

I will forgive you. Its easy to do so, when your under such fierce subjective attack, i know. Im the only Agnostic liberal among a group of Right wing (to the point of fascist) conservative religious nuts. (in other words, my friends). And it is hard to stop yourself treating all the opposition as one person. But as an objectivist to the last, i try my best. really, i do. But sometimes, i just lose patience. :headbang:

Edit: By "its easy to do so", I mean, "Its easy to do as you did." Thought I'd correct that, and leave the original for reference.

It wouldn't be legal. Their votes wouldn't be counted as legal, and they should have passed the amendment before the election.
.

Your hypothetical question has been responded to at least five times and you've not yet made a cogent reply to any of the responses or their follow-ups.

And yet I believe I HAVE and am left to wonder how this is not considered a "flame" towards me, deserving of a warning from the Moderator?

Regards,
Gaar

And yet I believe I HAVE and am left to wonder how this is not considered a "flame" towards me, deserving of a warning from the Moderator?

Regards,
Gaar
HAVE you?


I don't SEE one.

ESPECIALLY to the ONE above.

Regards,

CSW

HAVE you?
I don't SEE one.

ESPECIALLY to the ONE above.

Regards,

CSW

Just recently, here in Washington, we have had a case where they are challenging an Election...

99 Felons, who shouldn't be able to Vote "Legally", Voted...

The Courts upheld their Right to Vote as an inherent Right in the Constitution regardless of what the “Law” said about their Vote. And that isn't just MY OPINION!

So now, tell me how they are going to "invalidate" a BUNCH of peoples Votes, simply because of WHO they Voted for?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

HAVE you?


I don't SEE one.

ESPECIALLY to the ONE above.

Regards,

CSW

*snicker*

Just recently, here in Washington, we have had a case where they are challenging an Election...

99 Felons, who shouldn't be able to Vote "Legally", Voted...

The Courts upheld their Right to Vote as an inherent Right in the Constitution regardless of what the “Law” said about their Vote. And that isn't just MY OPINION!

So now, tell me how they are going to "invalidate" a BUNCH of peoples Votes, simply because of WHO they Voted for?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Surely, in order to be considered a viable candidate, they have to be registered as being able to fulfill their roles. Otherwise, people could vote for ANYONE regardless of wether it was legal for them to take office. What if 70% suddenly decided that, in actual fact, they LIKED saddam's regime. Would that be a legal precedent for the dictator to annex the U.S.? I think not.

Surely, in order to be considered a viable candidate, they have to be registered as being able to fulfill their roles. Otherwise, people could vote for ANYONE regardless of wether it was legal for them to take office. What if 70% suddenly decided that, in actual fact, they LIKED saddam's regime. Would that be a legal precedent for the dictator to annex the U.S.? I think not.

Do YOU just make this up as you go along?

The "Original" premise was that it was a TWO TERM President, one would be left to believe that he WAS ALREADY deemed viable, one would hope...

And how does THIS not become "Hijacking" MY THREAD by "changing" the "Subject" that I have put forward?

Why aren't the people that keep trying to "change" the subject asked not to?

Why is it that people have to find their OWN Subject to try and refute MY ASSERTION?

If you would like to ask Questions like the one YOU HAVE, please start your OWN Thread...

Regards,
Gaar

Is this a warning or a request?It's a comment, a suggestion, and a request. You haven't reached the "warning" stage at this point.
And why do I not see people warned who ACTUALLY attack ME personally?
A) I've seen plenty of people in this thread attack your position. I haven't seen any attacking you. There is a difference.
B) If it's happened elsewhere, nobody reported it. We're not omniscient.

I also find it quite interesting that YOU YOURSELF have a ?signature? on your posts that basically says the same thing as what is to the left of the post.
I sign my posts with my name and title when I'm acting in official capacity as a Moderator. When I wish to add comments to a post as a board member, I leave my posts unsigned. This is accepted practice among moderators. You have no official capacity here, so the two cases are not related.
Your hypothetical question has been responded to at least five times and you've not yet made a cogent reply to any of the responses or their follow-ups.And yet I believe I HAVE and am left to wonder how this is not considered a "flame" towards me, deserving of a warning from the Moderator?
Seems to me that this is an observation, not a flame. No one has called you an idiot, they've said "you've not yet made a cogent reply". Whether the flaw is on the side of the reader or the writer is not my job to judge, but I haven't been able to pick out your meaning from the responses either. Given that, I'm ruling it isn't a flame.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Stop capitalizing.

What would happen if an overwhelming majority of the population of the US wanted Bush for another term and wrote in votes as in your hypothetical situation?

Those votes would be invalid and not counted. Someone else would win.

However, there would then be a coup and the US Government would be replaced by a capitalist theocracy that would proceed to invade numerous sovereignties around the globe.

And again, in the hypothetical...

What if NO one else received ANY Electoral Votes?

Or is that too "far fetched" to be considered, by you?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

It would go to the US House of Representatives, where the Representatives would vote.

If they voted the two-term president, I'm pretty sure the Chief Justice wouldn't swear him in.

But as dumb as the political parties in the nation can be at times, I do not think that they would take the risk of putting up a two-term man to run for a third term.

Seems to me that this is an observation, not a flame. No one has called you an idiot, they've said "you've not yet made a cogent reply". Whether the flaw is on the side of the reader or the writer is not my job to judge, but I haven't been able to pick out your meaning from the responses either. Given that, I'm ruling it isn't a flame.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

So asking what people may not understand after having answered the question IS a flame...

But SAYING someone has not made a "cogent" reply is not.

I'll have to remember that.

By the way, I "sign" my posts so no one HAS to "call me" Urantia II, which is not my name. Is there a problem with that? (Again, I apologize for the question but want to make clear whether this is ACTUALLY a problem or not).

Regards,
Gaar

Stop capitalizing.

What would happen if an overwhelming majority of the population of the US wanted Bush for another term and wrote in votes as in your hypothetical situation?

Those votes would be invalid and not counted. Someone else would win.

However, there would then be a coup and the US Government would be replaced by a capitalist theocracy that would proceed to invade numerous sovereignties around the globe.

And so when is someone, who suggests that THIS may be the result, going to address MY ASSERTION that it would be CHALLENGED in the Supreme Court and the Ruling I have suggested they would make?

Regards,
Gaar

Do YOU just make this up as you go along?

The "Original" premise was that it was a TWO TERM President, one would be left to believe that he WAS ALREADY deemed viable, one would hope...

And how does THIS not become "Hijacking" MY THREAD by "changing" the "Subject" that I have put forward?

Why aren't the people that keep trying to "change" the subject asked not to?

Why is it that people have to find their OWN Subject to try and refute MY ASSERTION?

If you would like to ask Questions like the one YOU HAVE, please start your OWN Thread...

Regards,
Gaar


It seems that i must now ask for forgiveness, in the hope that this will even out. I apologise for losing context.

But I will add that since you youself have deviated from your stringent understanding of your own topic, i also ask why you consider that people shouldnt add to a constructive, PUBLIC debate. If you wanted a private debate where everyone follows your rules and agrees with you, it should have been stated in the title, or started in your own, privately moderated forum. Not one where over a million people have access.

You seem to forget urantia that the supreme court has established a legal precedent which discounts the 'freedom of choice' - namely the 2000 election where the electoral college was upheld to be more important than the will of the majority of voters.

Actually, this is not the first time this has happened. In the 1824 election, Andrew Jackson had more popular votes than the runner-up, John Quincy Adams. He also had more electoral votes. However, he didn't have enough, so the election went to the House of Representatives. In the House, Clay threw his support to Adams, and Adams won.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h262.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores.html#1824


In the 1876 election, Hayes had less electoral votes than Tilden. However, the results of three Southern states were disputed. In the Compromise of 1877, Hayes received the disputed electoral votes and assumed the presidency under the condition that he would end federal Reconstruction.

It seems that i must now ask for forgiveness, in the hope that this will even out. I apologise for losing context.

But I will add that since you youself have deviated from your stringent understanding of your own topic, i also ask why you consider that people shouldnt add to a constructive, PUBLIC debate. If you wanted a private debate where everyone follows your rules and agrees with you, it should have been stated in the title, or started in your own forum. Not one where over a million people have access.

First off, I am SURE they would find "other" reasons for not upholding an Election of someone not "viable" for the Office, other than the 22nd Amendment. But again, that is FAR from what I was asking...

How have I deviated?

I am simply trying to get an answer to my question.

No one has yet addressed the ACTUAL ACTS of a Judiciary Branch having upheld the Right to Vote OVER the "Law"...

Why is that?

You think the Judiciary is going to uphold the Right's of a convicted Felon who has paid his debt to Society but not the Rights of an Average citizen?

Regards,
Gaar

Most Supreme Court Justices are fiercely loyal to the constitution, and they do a good job at upholding it. However, that is only some. A few have tried to redefine the constitution, but ultimatly, none have succeeded.

Ok. Here it is. Straight up. I think that the supreme court of the U.S. would uphold whatever benefited the party of the judge/s who made up the panel of review over the issue. I cant see that they would overrule a valid "legal" election on the grounds that people acted illegally, if it got their candidate into power. However, if the party of those involved was set to gain by stating the ammendment should be overturned, then im sure they would advocate it. However, this would lead to such horriffic legal wrangling that it would hardly be worth the effort, and given the current position of American politics/law relations, would certainly take more than five years to resolve (think about it: each separate state's electoral votes would constitute a seaparate legal challenge to the election.) Therefore, another election would be due before then. At this stage, Congress woukld be forced to intervene and make a decision, as is the case when the presidential election is tied. I have no doubt that the decision of congress in such matters would be made legally finite in a relatively short space of time, given the importance of the situation. Does that answer your question, Gaar?

Regards,
Azzy

Getting back on topic, the Supreme Court has gutted amendments before. The most noticeable was the 14th. The Supreme Court gutted it in 1883. This lead to the widespeard use of Jim Crow laws (helped in Pleesy v. Ferguson) and the loss of civil and political rights by blacks in the South. Technically, they did it on the basis of the Constitution and states' rights. Should this have beeen done? I don't think so.

In the end, the Amendments have to triumph over the Court. That's the point of the whole amendment process. It's a way of affecting a widespead change without holding another Constitutional Convention. The justices cannot rule based on feelings, personal or political. The Court was put in place to see that Congress and the President didn't become tyranical. When we are not in danger of that (and we're not), then they must let the laws stand. Honestly, I think that the most recent ruling where they have mad e a mistake was the campaign finance laws of 2002. It's a breach of free speech. But I digress. The court is used to keep us free, not to make new laws. That's what Congress is for.

*snip*

It definitely explains YOUR OPINION very well...

And I believe that the Supreme Court would take just ONE CASE and Rule, and that the ruling would apply to ALL of the cases, since the reasoning behind the Ruling for each would not change.

I also believe that the Rights of the "Individual" would be upheld and the "voice" of the PEOPLE would prevail with just ONE or perhaps TWO (One for the Individual and one for the States) decisions being made by the Courts, in the instance that I am postulating.

Regards,
Gaar

In the end, the Amendments have to triumph over the Court. That's the point of the whole amendment process. It's a way of affecting a widespead change without holding another Constitutional Convention. The justices cannot rule based on feelings, personal or political. The Court was put in place to see that Congress and the President didn't become tyranical. When we are not in danger of that (and we're not), then they must let the laws stand. Honestly, I think that the most recent ruling where they have mad e a mistake was the campaign finance laws of 2002. It's a breach of free speech. But I digress. The court is used to keep us free, not to make new laws. That's what Congress is for.

And the "Bill of Rights" should "trump" Amendments, when the two are in conflict.

Regards,
Gaar

And the "Bill of Rights" should "trump" Amendments, when the two are in conflict.

Regards,
Gaar

Beg pardon, but the Bill of Rights IS an Amendment. Ten of them to be exact. In theory, a new amendment could gut the Bill of RIghts. Honestly, if that ever happens, I join the militia movement and plan the overthrow of the government.

The Court was put in place to see that Congress and the President didn't become tyranical. When we are not in danger of that (and we're not), then they must let the laws stand.

Obviously you are unaware of how the "War on Drugs" and the more recent "Patriot Act" has subverted some of your CONSTITUTIONAL Right's...

Regards,
Gaar

It definitely explains YOUR OPINION very well...


But just to be pedantic, do you finally agree that I have answered your question, hypothetically? I have to know, or else, i may as well kill myself. Or you. Either would be fine, now i think about it *begins evil assination plans*

Beg pardon, but the Bill of Rights IS an Amendment. Ten of them to be exact. In theory, a new amendment could gut the Bill of RIghts. Honestly, if that ever happens, I join the militia movement and plan the overthrow of the government.

Understood...

But they called them a "Bill of Rights" for a reason, did they not?

(Sorry about the question, just want an answer to whether the poster agrees that there was a reason they cited them as such, apologizing every time is going to get tiresome.)...

Regards,
Gaar

But just to be pedantic, do you finally agree that I have answered your question, hypothetically? I have to know, or else, i may as well kill myself. Or you. Either would be fine, now i think about it *begins evil assination plans*

You have explained, very well, what YOU believe may happen and I do "accept it" as a possibility...

But I believe that MY assertions are MUCH more likely, given the "Real World" example I have given on the Judiciary Ruling on a persons Right to Vote.

But I do allow for the fact that I may be wrong, just as I ASSUME YOU to be...

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

And I'm pretty sure that suggesting YOU yourself would kill someone that is a member of these Boards IS against the "Rules"... You have to say that you would just "like" to "see" someone dead and not suggest that you would have any direct affect on the act... :p

Regards,
Gaar

I would not consider myself involved directly in any of the acts. Of course, i may express my wish to someone who would consider it seriously, but then, its hardly my fault if some maniac forces me to hand over several thousand dollars, forces me to reveal how i would hypothetically go about performing such an act, and then actually does it, is it?

Ps. I actually except your position. Everyone is going to assume their view is the more likely outcome. Its what makes REAL debate so interesting.

Seems to me that this is an observation, not a flame. No one has called you an idiot, they've said "you've not yet made a cogent reply". Whether the flaw is on the side of the reader or the writer is not my job to judge, but I haven't been able to pick out your meaning from the responses either. Given that, I'm ruling it isn't a flame.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Actually, if they had stated it as an OPINION, I would agree with you...

But to state it as some type of FACT is another matter entirely, is it not? (Asking because I would like an answer).

Otherwise, how is MY QUESTIONING THEIR understanding ANY DIFFERENT from their STATING I haven't made an argument that is... "Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing: a cogent argument. "?!?!

Especially when I BELIEVE I HAVE done otherwise, despite YOUR OPINION on the matter.

Regards,
Gaar

I would not consider myself involved directly in any of the acts. Of course, i may express my wish to someone who would consider it seriously, but then, its hardly my fault if some maniac forces me to hand over several thousand dollars, forces me to reveal how i would hypothetically go about performing such an act, and then actually does it, is it?

Well, your initial statement DID assert that YOU yourself would "do it", did it not? ...(again, only asking because I would like a response).

...or else, i may as well kill myself. Or you. Either would be fine, now i think about it *begins evil assination plans*

Regards,
Gaar

Obviously you are unaware of how the "War on Drugs" and the more recent "Patriot Act" has subverted some of your CONSTITUTIONAL Right's...

I've heard stories, but I'm going reserve judgement until I actually read throught the thing.

Just recently, here in Washington, we have had a case where they are challenging an Election...

99 Felons, who shouldn't be able to Vote "Legally", Voted...

The Courts upheld their Right to Vote as an inherent Right in the Constitution regardless of what the “Law” said about their Vote. And that isn't just MY OPINION!

So now, tell me how they are going to "invalidate" a BUNCH of peoples Votes, simply because of WHO they Voted for?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

When it goes against the constitution, yes. A two term president is not eligible to take office.

A hypothetical.

Let's say that 70% of the people vote for Mickey Mouse. Does he become president, despite not being a US citizen, or even actually existing, or do we just play old cartoons for the state of the union address etc.

I've heard stories, but I'm going reserve judgement until I actually read throught the thing.

The first thing you may like to "find" in the Patriot Act is how they have made it "Legal" for Law Enforcement to "write" their own "Search Warrants"... Which directly conflicts with the Bill of Rights.

Regards,
Gaar

Let's say that 70% of the people vote for Mickey Mouse. Does he become president, despite not being a US citizen, or even actually existing, or do we just play old cartoons for the state of the union address etc.

Would YOU PLEASE stop HIJACKING MY THREAD!

READ the entire Thread and see how THIS has ALREADY BEEN Addressed, even though it WASN'T even remotely associated to the ORIGINAL Question here...

Regards,
Gaar

Uhhhh... Will You except a politicians answer? I may have stated I'd do it, but that was then. Given the new facts, I think a different course of action is justied, despite any hypocrisy which only the weak positioned will sieze upon in debate. Of course, my statement about zealous maniacs still stands. There are rather a lot of them around me. Something seems to draw them closer to me everyday... :sniper:

Would YOU PLEASE stop HIJACKING MY THREAD!

READ the entire Thread and see how THIS has ALREADY BEEN Addressed, even though it WASN'T even remotely associated to the ORIGINAL Question here...

Regards,
Gaar
Hijacking? I'm mearly taking what you said to another logical point of view to demonstrate the absurdity of your statement.

READ what I WROTE and STOP randomly CAPITALIZING words.

Regards,
CSW

Hijacking? I'm mearly taking what you said to another logical point of view to demonstrate the absurdity of your statement.

READ what I WROTE and STOP randomly CAPITALIZING words.

Regards,
CSW

Could be considered a false analogy falacy, as Mickey Mouse would never be considered for ANY office, since he is an entirely fictional character. Voting for mickey mouse would be considered not voting, or worse, intentionally spoiling a ballot. Therefore, it is not relevant to discussion.

Thought Id tey to get in before Gaar, to make this position stronger. :D

EDIT: BOLLOCKS. Clicked on the wrong quote. Im sure you can find the right one. Its about voting Mickey mouse into office, if you're too dense to guess.

Second edit: Actually, take both quotes into account. They help reinforce what I was saying as a pair, so, hey, who cares if it was fluke. Its still relevant.

Hijacking? I'm mearly taking what you said to another logical point of view to demonstrate the absurdity of your statement.

READ what I WROTE and STOP randomly CAPITALIZING words.

Regards,
CSW

AGAIN!

If YOU had BOTHERED to READ the Thread, you would ALREADY HAVE an answer to YOUR OFF TOPIC QUESTION!

PLEASE STOP!

Regards,
Gaar

Could be considered a false analogy falacy, as Mickey Mouse would never be considered for ANY office, since he is an entirely fictional character. Voting for mickey mouse would be considered not voting, or worse, intentionally spoiling a ballot. Therefore, it is not relevant to discussion.

Thought Id tey to get in before Gaar, to make this position stronger. :D

BOLLOCKS. Clicked on the wrong quote. Im sure you can find the right one. Its about voting Mickey mouse into office, if you're too dense to guess.
Except Bush or any other second term president has the same legal ability to run for president as Mickey Mouse. They can't. It's quite a valid analogy.

Except Bush or any other second term president has the same legal ability to run for president as Mickey Mouse. They can't. It's quite a valid analogy.

I am now asking for Moderator assistance here...

AGAIN!

If YOU had BOTHERED to READ the Thread, you would ALREADY HAVE an answer to YOUR OFF TOPIC QUESTION!

PLEASE STOP!

Regards,
Gaar
AGAIN


AS I have BOTHERED to READ the THREAD (with a capital T), I HAVE yet TO SEE you ACTUALLY address this POINT which is highly RELEVANT as you are BASING one of your POINTS on the ABILITY of the COURTS to ignore the amendment FORBIDDING a person to hold the presidency three times on A CASE much similar to THE ONE that I HAVE PROPOSED. ANSWER IT.


PLEASE STOP RANDOMLY CAPITALIZING WORDS!


Regards
CSW

*snip*

Asked and answered...

AGAIN, TRY READING THE THREAD!

Regards,
Gaar

Except Bush or any other second term president has the same legal ability to run for president as Mickey Mouse. They can't. It's quite a valid analogy.

Bush is eligible for presidancy. It is possible that the constitution could be altered for him to serve a third term. It is not physically possible to have a non-existent character as president, wether you consider the argument legally, exestentially or, best of all, scientifically. Therefore, false analogy.

Bush is eligible for presidancy. It is possible that the constitution could be altered for him to serve a third term. It is not physically possible to have a non-existent character as president, wether you consider the argument legally, exestenially or, best of all, scientifically. Therefore, false analogy.
Wrong. His entire point is based upon the courts allowing Bush to hold office again without a change to the constitution. As it stands, such a move would never happen as he is not legally allowed to run for office because of that amendment, and courts can't up and decide to change the wording of the Constitution.

Asked and answered...

AGAIN, TRY READING THE THREAD!

Regards,
Gaar
Show.


Regards
CSW

Wrong. His entire point is based upon the courts allowing Bush to hold office again without a change to the constitution. As it stands, such a move would never happen as he is not legally allowed to run for office because of that amendmentm, and courts can't up and decide to change the wording of the Constitution.

But ammendmants can be added to overrule past ammendments, with the appropriate backing (2/3 majority by congress and presidential ratification? correct me if im wrong, my politics is shakey).

Beg pardon Gaar, but your points might be better taken if you didn't just shout them.

But ammendmants can be added to overrule past ammendments, with the appropriate backing (2/3 majority by congress and presidential ratification? correct me if im wrong, my politics is shakey).

2/3 or Congress plus 3/4 of the states ratification

And it's happened before, like when the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

But ammendmants can be added to overrule past ammendments, with the appropriate backing (2/3 majority by congress and presidential ratification? correct me if im wrong, my politics is shakey).
Indeed they can. However, he is saying that such an amendment did not occur, so the 22nd amendment is still in force during the time of the hypothetical election to the third term. It is quite clear that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice".

Do YOU just make this up as you go along?

The "Original" premise was that it was a TWO TERM President, one would be left to believe that he WAS ALREADY deemed viable, one would hope...

And how does THIS not become "Hijacking" MY THREAD by "changing" the "Subject" that I have put forward?

Why aren't the people that keep trying to "change" the subject asked not to?

Why is it that people have to find their OWN Subject to try and refute MY ASSERTION?

If you would like to ask Questions like the one YOU HAVE, please start your OWN Thread...

Regards,
Gaar

Anything else I can do for you?

2/3 or Congress plus 3/4 of the states ratification

And it's happened before, like when the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

Thank You ;)

Anything else I can do for you?
No, not even close to it. It doesn't address any of the issues involved...at all.

Your original premise involved the invalidation by the courts of the 22nd amendment, which is the entire point of this discussion. Do you conceed that the courts can't do that?

AGAIN!

If YOU had BOTHERED to READ the Thread, you would ALREADY HAVE an answer to YOUR OFF TOPIC QUESTION!

PLEASE STOP!

Ga


This goes back to the question of whether or not you have made a cogent reply.

You have not addressed the point that the rule of law makes no allowance for a "freedom of choice" and that an invalid ballot, whether it is cast for Mickey Mouse or for Bill Clinton or George W Bush is in fact *invalid.*

Until you can demonstrate through precedent that this is incorrect, you have failed to respond to the point and instead merely ignored it.

Recall that the country does not base its presidential elections on the principle of "freedom to choose" but rather on the strict rule of law, as is demonstrated by the 2000 election.

But ammendmants can be added to overrule past ammendments, with the appropriate backing (2/3 majority by congress and presidential ratification? correct me if im wrong, my politics is shakey).

They may also be deemed UnConstitutional by a Ruling of the Supreme Court, can they not? (Again, asking because I would like a reply).

So, they may not just Rule on an Amendment when it becomes an Amendment, but they are able to Rule on its validity when it is challenged in a Court of Law, right? (Again, asking because...)

Regards,
Gaar

This goes back to the question of whether or not you have made a cogent reply.

You have not addressed the point that the rule of law makes no allowance for a "freedom of choice" and that an invalid ballot, whether it is cast for Mickey Mouse or for Bill Clinton or George W Bush is in fact *invalid.*

Until you can demonstrate through precedent that this is incorrect, you have failed to respond to the point and instead merely ignored it.

Recall that the country does not base its presidential elections on the principle of "freedom to choose" but rather on the strict rule of law, as is demonstrated by the 2000 election.

So, maybe this rule of law justification is wrong. If you have read the thread, you woudl have read my statements against Gaar's position, until such time as he has explained and it logically. But have you considered that if such a situation occured, it may lead to mass protest by a substantial party, leading to splitting of congress over the issue and eventual referendum, overturning the entire U.S. electoral system, which in any case is one of the least democratic voting systems on the planet. Please do not attack me, its just one of many possibilities, and answers the original question (as did my first 3 suggestions).

They may also be deemed UnConstitutional by a Ruling of the Supreme Court, can they not? (Again, asking because I would like a reply).

So, they may not just Rule on an Amendment when it becomes an Amendment, but they are able to Rule on its validity when it is challenged in a Court of Law, right? (Again, asking because...)

Regards,
Gaar
NO.

Courts are bound by the Constitution above all. They can't rule parts of it unconstitutional because they feel like it. All amendments are valid until they are removed by later amendments.

You have not addressed the point that the rule of law makes no allowance for a "freedom of choice" and that an invalid ballot, whether it is cast for Mickey Mouse or for Bill Clinton or George W Bush is in fact *invalid.*

Until you can demonstrate through precedent that this is incorrect, you have failed to respond to the point and instead merely ignored it.

Recall that the country does not base its presidential elections on the principle of "freedom to choose" but rather on the strict rule of law, as is demonstrated by the 2000 election.

Really?

So having pointed out that the Judiciary here in Washington State HAS INDEED upheld a Right to Vote REGARDLESS of the "Laws" that suggest otherwise didn't do some of that, for you?

Perhaps YOU can point out where "Freedom of Choice" has NOT been upheld by a Court in the U.S.?

Regards,
Gaar

So, maybe this rule of law justification is wrong. If you have read the thread, you woudl have read my statements against Gaar's position, until such time as he has explained and it logically. But have you considered that if such a situation occured, it may lead to mass protest by a substantial party, leading to splitting of congress over the issue and eventual referendum, overturning the entire U.S. electoral system, which in any case is one of the least democratic voting systems in the planets. Please do not attack me, its just one of many possibilities, and answers the original question (as did my first 3 suggestions).
It's happened three times and no dissintegration yet.

They may also be deemed UnConstitutional by a Ruling of the Supreme Court, can they not? (Again, asking because I would like a reply).

So, they may not just Rule on an Amendment when it becomes an Amendment, but they are able to Rule on its validity when it is challenged in a Court of Law, right? (Again, asking because...)

Regards,
Gaar

They cannot strike down an amendment based on constitutionality because an amendment is part of the constitution. If an amendment is challenged directly (not just int he way that it is being applied), the court cannot strike it down.

NO.

Courts are bound by the Constitution above all. They can't rule parts of it unconstitutional because they feel like it. All amendments are valid until they are removed by later amendments.

And what about where the Constitution CONFLICTS with itself, like in the Patriot Act?

The Judiciary doesn't Rule on these matters?

Regards,
Gaar

Really?

So having pointed out that the Judiciary here in Washington State HAS INDEED upheld a Right to Vote REGARDLESS of the "Laws" that suggest otherwise didn't do some of that, for you?

Perhaps YOU can point out where "Freedom of Choice" has NOT been upheld by a Court in the U.S.?

Regards,
Gaar
They upheld the right to vote (in the Constitution) over a law. However, you do not have the right to vote for someone who is not eligable in the Constitution to hold office. It is still a vote (and thus you are exercising your right), but it is a spoiled vote. A protest vote. Not one that actually counts.

And what about where the Constitution CONFLICTS with itself, like in the Patriot Act?

The Judiciary doesn't Rule on these matters?

Regards,
Gaar
The PATRIOT act is not part of the Constitution. Learn the difference between a bill and a part of the Constitution. Parts of it have been struck down as unconstitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Granada
You have not addressed the point that the rule of law makes no allowance for a "freedom of choice" and that an invalid ballot, whether it is cast for Mickey Mouse or for Bill Clinton or George W Bush is in fact *invalid.*

Until you can demonstrate through precedent that this is incorrect, you have failed to respond to the point and instead merely ignored it.

Recall that the country does not base its presidential elections on the principle of "freedom to choose" but rather on the strict rule of law, as is demonstrated by the 2000 election.



Really?

So having pointed out that the Judiciary here in Washington State HAS INDEED upheld a Right to Vote REGARDLESS of the "Laws" that suggest otherwise didn't do some of that, for you?

Perhaps YOU can point out where "Freedom of Choice" has NOT been upheld by a Court in the U.S.?

Regards,
Gaar

They upheld the right to vote (in the Constitution) over a law. However, you do not have the right to vote for someone who is not eligable in the Constitution to hold office. It is still a vote (and thus you are exercising your right), but it is a spoiled vote. A protest vote. Not one that actually counts.

And I believe the Courts would RULE differently...

Since the Constitution is supposed to, first and foremost, uphold the Right's of the Individual OVER the Right's of the State, I believe the WILL of the People would be something the Supreme Court would not take lightly, regardless of ANY Amenment to the contrary.

Regards,
Gaar

It's happened three times and no dissintegration yet.

To paraphrase Gaar, you must consider the hypothetical in hand, which is that the political situation is unstable enough for 70% of the population to protest against it. Thats a huge majority, and such a protest would almost certainlty include general protests, rallies and, most importantly, strikes. Which may bring the country to its knees. Hundred's of years ago, a political situation led to civil war throughout the U.S. Just because in the modern day that war would be political/economic/legal doesn't lessen its importance. It just shows how culture has developed to express its opinions in the way most damaging to those against its general views.

Really?

So having pointed out that the Judiciary here in Washington State HAS INDEED upheld a Right to Vote REGARDLESS of the "Laws" that suggest otherwise didn't do some of that, for you?

Perhaps YOU can point out where "Freedom of Choice" has NOT been upheld by a Court in the U.S.?

Regards,
Gaar


Also, and this is very important so read it "gaar,"

The 22nd amendment is not a "law" in the sense that the word was used in the case you are referring to.

The supreme court's role is to decide whether or not laws (which are passed by legislatures) are in accordance with the constitution.

The courts have a responsibility to overturn unconstitutional laws, but is powerless to change the constitution itself.

The basis of all of our laws is the constitution, no law can violate a precedent established in the constitution and no act of government can be considered lawful if it violates the constitution.

And I believe the Courts would RULE differently...

Since the Constitution is supposed to, first and foremost, uphold the Right's of the Individual OVER the Right's of the State, I believe the WILL of the People would be something the Supreme Court would not take lightly, regardless of ANY Amenment to the contrary.

Regards,
Gaar
No. There are many cases were citizens rights have been heavily restricted, especially in the 18th amendment. Held as Constitutional.

The Constitution is solid at its core, you can't do something that is forbidden by it without an amendment to it.

And I believe the Courts would RULE differently...

Since the Constitution is supposed to, first and foremost, uphold the Right's of the Individual OVER the Right's of the State, I believe the WILL of the People would be something the Supreme Court would not take lightly, regardless of ANY Amenment to the contrary.

Regards,
Gaar

Beg pardon, but the Constitution itself puts limits on who can hold office. This includes how long they have been citizens and how old they are. Adding a new requirement that they can't have held the office for 2 terms earlier is still valid.

To paraphrase Gaar, you must consider the hypothetical in had, which is that the political situation is unstable enough for 70% of the population to protest against it. Thats a huge majority, and such a protest would almost certainlty include general protests, rallies and, most importantly, strikes. Which may bring the country to its knees. Hundred's of years ago, a political situation led to civil war throughout the U.S. Just because in the modern day that war would be political/economic/legal doesn't lessen its importance. It just shows how culture has developed to express its opinions in the way most damaging to those against its general views.
And they can't mount a campaign to add an amendment to the Constitution overturning the 22nd amendment why?

And they can't mount a campaign to add an amendment to the Constitution overturning the 22nd amendment why?

That is, in fact, the very core of this thread. THat given the situation put forward, such a campaign would occur. The debate is on the possible success of such a campaign, if i understand the question right. And given that 70% of the population would be participating, well, thats way above the ratio that normally vote in the elections, let alone hold an opinion, so i think there is a definite possibility of success.

A hypothetical question that is absurd to the point of being trivial is just that.

Devoid of practical relevance.

You may as well have asked "what would the surpeme court do if the aliens came and turned the vice president into a frog that could talk but not write, would he still be constitutionally fit to be vice president and what if the congress disagreed with the supreme court, and what if the chief justice got turned into a frog too, who would judge his competence?


urantia ii still has yet to determine some way to compell an answer other than "they would amend the constitution," and until he does, his question is absurd to the point that no reasonable or meaningful answer can be given.

urantia ii still has yet to determine some way to compell an answer other than "they would amend the constitution," and until he does, his question is absurd to the point that no reasonable or meaningful answer can be given.

If you think Gaar's answers need backing, read my responses. I think they may be more logically progressive for the more objective types.

Recall that the country does not base its presidential elections on the principle of "freedom to choose" but rather on the strict rule of law, as is demonstrated by the 2000 election.


And I HAVE pointed out where, THE STRICT RULE OF LAW was NOT FOLLOWED, just recently here in Washington, with regards to Elections and Voting.

Yet YOU choose to ignore that.

Regards,
Gaar

urantia ii still has yet to determine some way to compell an answer other than "they would amend the constitution," and until he does, his question is absurd to the point that no reasonable or meaningful answer can be given.

Sorry, something about the Supreme Court RULING against the 22nd Amendment that you aren't getting? (asking because I HAVE made the argument, and you keep denying I have).

Just as they have Ruled against other Amendments in the past?

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, something about the Supreme Court RULING against the 22nd Amendment that you aren't getting? (asking because I HAVE made the argument, and you keep denying I have).

Just as they have Ruled against other Amendments in the past?

Regards,
Gaar
Which?


Cite the cases please.

That is, in fact, the very core of this thread. THat given the situation put forward, such a campaign would occur. The debate is on the possible success of such a campaign, if i understand the question right. And given that 70% of the population would be participating, well, thats way above the ratio that normally vote in the elections, let alone hold an opinion, so i think there is a definite possibility of success.
No, this debate is if a court can overturn an amendment.

No, this debate is if a court can overturn an amendment.

No, it is whether the Supreme Court can RULE on the Constitutionality of an Amendment...

And what role that plays in "Checks and Balances".

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps the example I just used in the "Presidential term Limits" Thread would be a good example.

This should be good.

I'll re-post the question here...

What do YOU believe would happen if...(now I'm not saying this would have any chance of happening, but merely use it in the hypothetical)

What do you think the Supreme Court, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter, would do if George W. Bush WON the next Election?

One MINOR problem! Bush CANNOT run for re-election. He is prohibited to do it under.....

THE US CONSTITUTION

What do YOU think ANYONE would do against the WILL of the People?

You need to use a different scenerio because this one is destroyed on sight.

Let us say, for arguments sake, that some event were to propel the President's popularity THROUGH THE ROOF just before the next Election and the People WRITE IN Bush as their choice. Let's "pretend" that over 70% of the People VOTE for Bush...

Bush can't take office because of the Consitutional Ramifications. In order to do so would result in a Constitutional Amendment to allow such a thing to occur. That'll happen in the Halls of Congress.

What does ANYONE think the Supreme Court would do?!?!

They can't do anything. The Constitution is very clear on this matter. In order for Bush to win a third term would require a change in the Constitution.

They would simply swear in the candidate with next highest number of electoral votes.

That would be my guess! Or maybe his Vice President?

Which?

Cite the cases please.

http://www.solriders.com/amendment/amendment.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=157&page=429

http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg0898.shtml

Many years later the validity of both the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Amendments was challenged because of their content. The
arguments against the former took a wide range. Counsel urged that the
power of amendment is limited to the correction of errors in the framing
of the Constitution and that it does not comprehend the adoption of
additional or supplementary provisions. They contended further that
ordinary legislation cannot be embodied in a constitutional amendment
and that Congress cannot constitutionally propose any amendment which
involves the exercise or relinquishment of the sovereign powers of a
State.5 The Nineteenth Amendment was attacked on the narrower ground
that a State which had not ratified the amendment would be deprived of
its equal suffrage in the Senate because its representatives in that
body would be persons not of its choosing, i.e., persons chosen by
voters whom the State itself had not authorized to vote for Senators.6
Brushing aside these arguments as unworthy of serious attention, the
Supreme Court held both amendments valid.
________________________________

Now, I am not trying to say that these were succesful examples, just examples that it is done.

Regards,
Gaar

No, it is whether the Supreme Court can RULE on the Constitutionality of an Amendment...

And what role that plays in "Checks and Balances".

Regards,
Gaar
They are unable to, because they must base their law off of it...

OK, take Bush out of the equation...

Let's say we had a 2 Term President that is coming up on the end of his Presidency and suddenly we are ATTACKED!

Very well could happen.

And what if the People felt that the sitting President was the "Best Man" for Leading us through a Declared War against a Foreign Power?

Inhibited by the US Constitution. I suggest you read the Article 2 as well as Amendment XXII

Is that "possible" enough for YOU to comment on now?

No!

Why is it people need to change the subject, and not address a candid question?

Because this question is destroyed by the US Constitution?

Perhaps because they don’t like the answer they have, or don’t have?

Or perhaps your ignorant of what the US Constitution says on this matter maybe?

Which?

Cite the cases please.

Oh wait...

You are asking about challenges to the 22nd Amendment, aren't you?

Sorry, I can see how my statement might be interpreted as saying such a thing HAS happened, when in fact I am only suggesting that it CAN happen.

Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,
Gaar

They are unable to, because they must base their law off of it...

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain how it is that they HAVE BEEN and ARE Challenged?

Regards,
Gaar

Ok, so YOU say...

You don't listen do you?

And what do they do when someone CHALLENGES that decision, by citing their Constitutional Right to Freedom of Choice?

READ. The. 22 Amendment!

Or are you going to say that, since no such Right is given by the Constitution?

I love this. Funny as hell. You really are ignorant of what the US Constitution says about Presidential eligiblity as well as term limits are you?

Or that an Amendment has "taken" that Right from me?

Amendment 22 prohibits a President from seeking a 3rd term. If he should get the number of votes, it probably would go to the Vice President.

I believe YOU are WRONG!

Actually YOU ARE!!

Oh wait...

You are asking about challenges to the 22nd Amendment, aren't you?

Sorry, I can see how my statement might be interpreted as saying such a thing HAS happened, when in fact I am only suggesting that it CAN happen.

Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,
Gaar
Sigh...

No, your cases do not involve the challenging of the Constitution, only the challenging of laws. Try again.

And again, in the hypothetical...

What if NO one else received ANY Electoral Votes?

Or is that too "far fetched" to be considered, by you?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Dick Cheney will become President.

First, quit with the capitalization of random words. It's annoying. Second, an amendment can't be unconstitional by definition, once it is part of the constitution.

He doesn't understand that CSW!

But it can, later, by The Supreme Court. Remember Prohibition?

Actually the XXI amendment repealed the XVIII Amendment.

Something about a "hypothetical" that people around here don't get?

And if you are unable to "write in" a candidate on a "Ballot Machine" then I believe all you need to do is ask for a "Provisional Ballot" and not Vote by Machine, which is supposed to be available at ALL Polling places.

Regards,
Gaar

*Sighs*

I get the hypothetical but what your not understanding is the Constitution of the USA

Let plays "define the terms"

Unconstitutional: a law passed by a legislative power or an act of government which contradicts an amendment to the constitution.

Judicial review: The power of the supreme court to decide what is and is not in accordance with the constitution.

"unconstitutional amendment" : a contradiction in terms, an amendment is the standard against which laws are judged, it cannot contradict itself or be judged against itself. Nor has the legislature, executive or judicial branch the power to make such a judgement to begin with.

"challange to an amendment" : a nonsense made-up word. an amendment cannot be challanged.

repealing an amendment : can only be done by going through the process of adding a new amendment to the constitution. cannot be done through judicial, legislative or executive fiat.


Now, can you please rephrase your question so that it is in plain english and respects the meanings of the words that you use.

Perhaps...

But it is my belief that just the ACT of Electing a 3rd term President would be enough to overturn the Amendment, and hence my belief that it is UnConstitutional.

READ THE TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT! The ONLY way to overturn THAT is to REPEAL IT! Do you understand that?

Just because it hasn't been challenged and a decision rendered that it IS UnConstitutional doesn't mean that it can't be or isn't, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

Good luck in figuring that one out. I'll stick to Article II and Amendment XXII

Sigh...

No, your cases do not involve the challenging of the Constitution, only the challenging of laws. Try again.

And what are the "Laws" based on?

Since the "Law" is what comes FROM Amendments it IS the Way the Supreme Court Rules on the Constitutionality of the Amendment, is it not? (Again, asking because I would like a response).

Do they not cite Constitutional Rights when Ruling on such matters?

Haven't such Rulings led to the creation of new Amendments, citing the Court cases that led to the end of Prohibition?

The Supreme Court didn't HAVE to challenge the Constitution, just the Laws that are derived from it, in order to make an Amendment "toothless", do they? (Again, only asking in order to get a response to the question).

Regards,
Gaar

READ THE TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT! The ONLY way to overturn THAT is to REPEAL IT! Do you understand that?

Good luck in figuring that one out. I'll stick to Article II and Amendment XXII

No it isn't...

People were exonerated from Prohibition Laws BEFORE Prohibition was repealed, were they not? (asking to see if the poster is aware of this).

So the Courts were the ones to decide that Prohibition was wrong, long before there was an Amendment that said so...

Regards,
Gaar

And just to be clear, I believe you are wrong...

What's the point then if you tell everyone they're wrong?

I believe that a CHALLENGE would be made in the Supreme Court and the 22nd Amendment would be ruled UnConstitutional and the results of the Election would stand.

The only way to get rid of an amendment is with another amendment repealing said amendment. Do you understand?

But you are free to have any OPINION you would like, just as I am.

And your opinion is so off the charts, its not even funny.

That doesn't make either of them Right or Wrong.

In this case since the Constitution is used to defeat your arguements, yes.

I just wanted to make the point that the Supreme Court could IN FACT rule that a Constitutional Amendment was UnConstitutional.

I doubt it very very highly. A Constitutional Amendment is CONSTITUTIONAL till REPEALED.

Bush is eligible for presidancy. It is possible that the constitution could be altered for him to serve a third term. It is not physically possible to have a non-existent character as president, wether you consider the argument legally, exestentially or, best of all, scientifically. Therefore, false analogy.

No, he's not eligible. Yes, the Constitution could be altered for a possible third term, but the key fact is that its not. Until it is, he's not eligible.

*Hands Dohnut a dollar* Go buy yourself a clue.

And what are the "Laws" based on?

Since the "Law" is what comes FROM Amendments it IS the Way the Supreme Court Rules on the Constitutionality of the Amendment, is it not? (Again, asking because I would like a response).

Do they not cite Constitutional Rights when Ruling on such matters?

Haven't such Rulings led to the creation of new Amendments, citing the Court cases that led to the end of Prohibition?

The Supreme Court didn't HAVE to challenge the Constitution, just the Laws that are derived from it, in order to make an Amendment "toothless", do they? (Again, only asking in order to get a response to the question).

Regards,
Gaar
No. Very few laws are directly based upon amendments,and those that are and the amendments act as 'superlaws', to use a very crude term, laws that are unable to be declared unconstitutional because they are in the constitution. However, a law that is in opposition/oversteps the bounds of the constitution can be declared unconstitutional. Again, something that is allowed in the constitution would be 'constitutional', something that goes against it would be 'unconstitutional'. This is what happens in most cases. No court case lead to the end of prohibition, an amendment repealed the prohibition amendment.

*snip*

Waiting for you to "catch up" on the many questions you are asking that have ALREADY been asked and answered...

Regards,
Gaar

No. Very few laws are directly based upon amendments,and those that are and the amendments act as 'superlaws', to use a very crude term, laws that are unable to be declared unconstitutional because they are in the constitution. However, a law that is in opposition/oversteps the bounds of the constitution can be declared unconstitutional. Again, something that is allowed in the constitution would be 'constitutional', something that goes against it would be 'unconstitutional'. This is what happens in most cases. No court case lead to the end of prohibition, an amendment repealed the prohibition amendment.

And when are you going to address "conflicts" in the Constitution?

And...

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/case/part3.htm

Another common misconception is that an amendment can negate a fundamental constitutional right. It is of necessity to see how the supreme court addresses these items rather than the government propaganda mills. There is no substitute for your own education; the truth will set you free.

If we assume, for analysis, that the 16th amendment was properly ratified, can it negate a constitutional safeguard or nullify a fundamental constitutional right? Of course not. The purpose for the constitution was to put certain rights of the people beyond the grasp of government tampering. "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v Barnett, 319 US 624, 638 (1943). If the government can impose a tax on a constitutional right because of the 16th amendment, then the right to trial by jury, the freedom of the press, and each and every constitutional protection can similarly be taxed or destroyed tomorrow by amendment; the constitution can be totally emasculated by the mischief of congress and the state legislators.

Regards,
Gaar

And when are you going to address "conflicts" in the Constitution?

And...

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/case/part3.htm

Another common misconception is that an amendment can negate a fundamental constitutional right. It is of necessity to see how the supreme court addresses these items rather than the government propaganda mills. There is no substitute for your own education; the truth will set you free.

If we assume, for analysis, that the 16th amendment was properly ratified, can it negate a constitutional safeguard or nullify a fundamental constitutional right? Of course not. The purpose for the constitution was to put certain rights of the people beyond the grasp of government tampering. "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v Barnett, 319 US 624, 638 (1943). If the government can impose a tax on a constitutional right because of the 16th amendment, then the right to trial by jury, the freedom of the press, and each and every constitutional protection can similarly be taxed or destroyed tomorrow by amendment; the constitution can be totally emasculated by the mischief of congress and the state legislators.

Regards,
Gaar

Correct. The Rights that we enjoy can be taken away by amendments. The Bill of Rights puts those rights out of the way of a majority of Congress. While it is possible for the First Amendment to get repealed, it is very unlikely, as it would require the states to agree as well as 2/3 of Congress. But it still can be done.

And what are the "Laws" based on?

Since the "Law" is what comes FROM Amendments it IS the Way the Supreme Court Rules on the Constitutionality of the Amendment, is it not? (Again, asking because I would like a response).

Do they not cite Constitutional Rights when Ruling on such matters?

Haven't such Rulings led to the creation of new Amendments, citing the Court cases that led to the end of Prohibition?

The Supreme Court didn't HAVE to challenge the Constitution, just the Laws that are derived from it, in order to make an Amendment "toothless", do they? (Again, only asking in order to get a response to the question).

Regards,
Gaar

The Court has stricken laws that were designed to enforce amendments (i.e. the 14th), but they cannot touch the amendment itself. When something is as clear-cut as the 22nd, they would be essentially powerless to touch it.

As to what you had mentioned in Washington, I'm not up on what's happening there. Could you provide some details?

Obviously you are unaware of how the "War on Drugs" and the more recent "Patriot Act" has subverted some of your CONSTITUTIONAL Right's...

Regards,
Gaar

Actually they don't! Not even the PATRIOT Act. The USA PATRIOT Act rewrote several laws that WERE already ON THE BOOKS!

Besides, I still have ALL of my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

The first thing you may like to "find" in the Patriot Act is how they have made it "Legal" for Law Enforcement to "write" their own "Search Warrants"... Which directly conflicts with the Bill of Rights.

Regards,
Gaar

Might be surprised to learn that it still requires a JUDGE to approve of it?

And when are you going to address "conflicts" in the Constitution?

And...

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/case/part3.htm

Another common misconception is that an amendment can negate a fundamental constitutional right. It is of necessity to see how the supreme court addresses these items rather than the government propaganda mills. There is no substitute for your own education; the truth will set you free.

If we assume, for analysis, that the 16th amendment was properly ratified, can it negate a constitutional safeguard or nullify a fundamental constitutional right? Of course not. The purpose for the constitution was to put certain rights of the people beyond the grasp of government tampering. "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v Barnett, 319 US 624, 638 (1943). If the government can impose a tax on a constitutional right because of the 16th amendment, then the right to trial by jury, the freedom of the press, and each and every constitutional protection can similarly be taxed or destroyed tomorrow by amendment; the constitution can be totally emasculated by the mischief of congress and the state legislators.

Regards,
Gaar
Which conflicts?

Nice cut and paste, but their wrong. Amendments can overrule rights, if they pass throug the legistlatures. The courts base their ability to rule off of the Constitution, and they can't rule against the Constitution. I assume you're one of those nutcases who believes that the 16th amendment is invalid?

2/3 or Congress plus 3/4 of the states ratification

And it's happened before, like when the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

And the only time that it occured.

And what about where the Constitution CONFLICTS with itself, like in the Patriot Act?

Doesn't Conflict. It re-writes several laws that were already on the books and a judge is still required.

The Judiciary doesn't Rule on these matters?

Declared a very small part of it Unconstitutional and those really dealing with aiding terrorism.

Which conflicts?

Nice cut and paste, but their wrong. Amendments can overrule rights, if they pass throug the legistlatures. The courts base their ability to rule off of the Constitution, and they can't rule against the Constitution. I assume you're one of those nutcases who believes that the 16th amendment is invalid?

The case of the income tax is also a perfect example of the process of checks and balances in action. Congress passed a income tax. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So Congress (and the states) decided to change the Constitution, which puts it out of reach for the Supreme Court. That's the way that it's supposed to work.

The case of the income tax is also a perfect example of the process of checks and balances in action. Congress passed a income tax. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So Congress (and the states) decided to change the Constitution, which puts it out of reach for the Supreme Court. That's the way that it's supposed to work.

Really?

In an argument made before the Supreme Court regarding the 18th Amendment...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html

If your Honors shall find a way to declare this so-called Amendment to the Federal Constitution valid, then the Government of the United States as it has been known to us and to our forefathers will have ceased to exist. Your Honors will have discovered a new legislative authority hitherto unknown to the Constitution and quite untrammelled by any of its limitations. You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. In that case, Your Honors, John Marshall need never have sat upon that bench."

Regards,
Gaar

And I HAVE pointed out where, THE STRICT RULE OF LAW was NOT FOLLOWED, just recently here in Washington, with regards to Elections and Voting.

In Florida, there were election irregularites done by both sides. However, the US Supreme Court found the Florida Supreme Court to be Rewriting election laws from the bench. Not to mention, they also found that the Recount was using different standards in different counties and not ONE universal standard. Therefor, the rule of law was UPHELD in Florida.

Yet YOU choose to ignore that.

You failed to research it.

Sorry, something about the Supreme Court RULING against the 22nd Amendment that you aren't getting? (asking because I HAVE made the argument, and you keep denying I have).

Its Constitutional. Its in the US Constitution and therefor constitutional.

Just as they have Ruled against other Amendments in the past?

No amendment will be ruled unconstitional.

No, it is whether the Supreme Court can RULE on the Constitutionality of an Amendment...

They cant

And what role that plays in "Checks and Balances".

It doesn't

Really?

In an argument made before the Supreme Court regarding the 18th Amendment...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html

If your Honors shall find a way to declare this so-called Amendment to the Federal Constitution valid, then the Government of the United States as it has been known to us and to our forefathers will have ceased to exist. Your Honors will have discovered a new legislative authority hitherto unknown to the Constitution and quite untrammelled by any of its limitations. You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. In that case, Your Honors, John Marshall need never have sat upon that bench."

Regards,
Gaar

Two-thirds of Congress plus 3/4 of the states CAN do anything that they want. That's how the Bill of Rights was enacted to begin with. In theory, they could be repealed the same way. However, the chance of that happening is extremely small. Also, if that happens, it would be our duty as citizens to overthrow the government and start fresh. It's the ultimate check on government.

It might also be noted that John Marshall was instrumental in depriving a man of his civil rights in the Dred Scott case.

Really?

In an argument made before the Supreme Court regarding the 18th Amendment...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html

If your Honors shall find a way to declare this so-called Amendment to the Federal Constitution valid, then the Government of the United States as it has been known to us and to our forefathers will have ceased to exist. Your Honors will have discovered a new legislative authority hitherto unknown to the Constitution and quite untrammelled by any of its limitations. You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. In that case, Your Honors, John Marshall need never have sat upon that bench."

Regards,
Gaar


An argument is not the decision made by the court. Honestly. That's one side attempting to get the court to agree with them.

By the way, the court unanimously rejected that argument.

No it isn't...

People were exonerated from Prohibition Laws BEFORE Prohibition was repealed, were they not? (asking to see if the poster is aware of this).

Want to provide proof since your the Constitutional wiz?

So the Courts were the ones to decide that Prohibition was wrong, long before there was an Amendment that said so...

They STILL can't repeal an Amendment

In Florida, there were election irregularites done by both sides. However, the US Supreme Court found the Florida Supreme Court to be Rewriting election laws from the bench. Not to mention, they also found that the Recount was using different standards in different counties and not ONE universal standard. Therefor, the rule of law was UPHELD in Florida.

You failed to research it.

Really!?!?

Perhaps, instead of changing the subject YOU would like to comment on the POINT I was making?

http://www.kirotv.com/politics/4267993/detail.html

Regards,
Gaar

Waiting for you to "catch up" on the many questions you are asking that have ALREADY been asked and answered...

Regards,
Gaar

Answered so funny it isn't even funny! Base it on fact for an intelligent debate.

Really!?!?

Perhaps, instead of changing the subject YOU would like to comment on the POINT I was making?

http://www.kirotv.com/politics/4267993/detail.html

Regards,
Gaar

Hmm no I wasn't changing the subject. If you bothered to read your own post, you would see that I was answering it. The Strict rule of law was upheld in Florida thanks to SCOTUS. It was the Florida Supreme Court that wasn't.

Gaar, I have a question. Let's assume for the moment that the Supreme Court can declare an amendment unconstitutional. What sort of check do we have against the Supreme Court? Somebody will have the last say. From what you say, the Supreme Court does. From what everyone else says, it's Congress and the states. With the latter, at least we elect them directly.

Also, what's to keep the Supreme Court from declaring that the First Amendment is unconstitutional? It's an amendment, so it can declared such, right?

Hmm no I wasn't changing the subject. If you bothered to read your own post, you would see that I was answering it. The Strict rule of law was upheld in Florida thanks to SCOTUS. It was the Florida Supreme Court that wasn't.

So I point out how it was NOT upheld in Washington State (The Rule of Law) and you point out that it WAS in the Florida case and I am somehow wrong because you have cited an example that "fits" YOUR THEORY, just as I have?

And YOU don't bother to even address the Washington case?

How does that work, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

So I point out how it was NOT upheld in Washington State (The Rule of Law) and you point out that it WAS in the Florida case and I am somehow wrong because you have cited an example that "fits" YOUR THEORY, just as I have?

I don't know Washington State law. I'll tell you that right now. However, I was addressing your Florida quote, not Washington quote.

And YOU don't bother to even address the Washington case?

Maybe there state laws allow them to vote maybe?

How does that work, in your mind?

I was addressing one point out of two you made.

Gaar, I have a question. Let's assume for the moment that the Supreme Court can declare an amendment unconstitutional. What sort of check do we have against the Supreme Court? Somebody will have the last say. From what you say, the Supreme Court does. From what everyone else says, it's Congress and the states. With the latter, at least we elect them directly.

Also, what's to keep the Supreme Court from declaring that the First Amendment is unconstitutional? It's an amendment, so it can declared such, right?

Well first off, we now get to come to the reason I cited the "Bill of Rights"...

For many within the Constitutional Law arena these "Amendments" were called a "Bill of Rights" so that they may be the basis for the Rights given in the Declaration of Independence... And therefore "untouchable" and irrefutable.

They did not mean for them to be an "exact" enumeration of ALL of the Right's it gives, just those they believed to be of the most importance, at the time.

Regards,
Gaar

Well first off, we now get to come to the reason I cited the "Bill of Rights"...

For many within the Constitutional Law arena these "Amendments" were called a "Bill of Rights" so that they may be the basis for the Rights given in the Declaration of Independence... And therefore "untouchable" and irrefutable.

They did not mean for them to be an "exact" enumeration of ALL of the Right's it gives, just those they believed to be of the most importance, at the time.

Regards,
Gaar

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. If the court can dismiss an amendment, why can't they dismiss the first ten?

I don't know Washington State law. I'll tell you that right now. However, I was addressing your Florida quote, not Washington quote.


What Florida quote of mine? I do not remember quoting anything from Florida... And the post you ARE ANSWERING when you make that statement directly refers to Washington State and not Florida...

Mind pointing out where I make ANY reference to Florida in this Thread? TIA


Maybe there state laws allow them to vote maybe?


It does, as long as certain things are done, which they weren't in most cases.


I was addressing one point out of two you made.

Really?

And what was the "other point" that you were addressing? Mind quoting my post that references that "point" while you are at it?

Regards,
Gaar

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. If the court can dismiss an amendment, why can't they dismiss the first ten?

Uhhh, because they are the "Bill of Right's", which AGAIN are a bit "different" from regular Amendments...

And perhaps YOU could point out where I have EVER said that they could "dismiss" or even "repeal" or anything like that?

I HAVE SAID that they can find the Law's derived from them as UnConstitutional, and if that finding dismisses the reasoning behind the Amendment it can be rendered "toothless", which would be the same as repealing it, but not entirely...

Regards,
Gaar

Uhhh, because they are the "Bill of Right's", which AGAIN are a bit "different" from regular Amendments...

And perhaps YOU could point out where I have EVER said that they could "dismiss" or even "repeal" or anything like that?

I HAVE SAID that they can find the Law's derived from them as UnConstitutional, and if that finding dismisses the reasoning behind the Amendment it can be rendered "toothless", which would be the same as repealing it, but not entirely...

Regards,
Gaar

Okay, so let me see if I got this straight. The court can rule laws unconstitutional. Sure. But they can't repeal amendments. Check. So the Supreme Court can't allow a person to take a third Presidential term? That's directly from the amendment's language. There isn't another law to rule unconstitutional on that one.

Also, the court could rule a law unconstitutional if it is designed to enforce the Bill of Rights, but it was against the body of the rest of the constitution, correct? If you're going to make the distinction between the constitution and the amendments, then the Bill of Rights would fall squarely into the later, as it is a list of ten amendments.

What Florida quote of mine? I do not remember quoting anything from Florida... And the post you ARE ANSWERING when you make that statement directly refers to Washington State and not Florida...

You addressed Washington when 2000 was brought up so you have no room to complain. That is where I was getting it. You tried to change to Washington when Florida was being address. And you talk about me changing topics.

Mind pointing out where I make ANY reference to Florida in this Thread? TIA

Here's a tip. When someone brings something up, don't change the subject. Florida was brought up and you changed it to Washington. Good job.

It does, as long as certain things are done, which they weren't in most cases.

Fine!

[Really?

Sorry, but you changed the topic from Florida to Washington.

And what was the "other point" that you were addressing? Mind quoting my post that references that "point" while you are at it?

Mind showing me where you addressed Florida since it was brought up and you quoted and bolded it?

They may also be deemed UnConstitutional by a Ruling of the Supreme Court, can they not? (Again, asking because I would like a reply).

So, they may not just Rule on an Amendment when it becomes an Amendment, but they are able to Rule on its validity when it is challenged in a Court of Law, right? (Again, asking because...)

Regards,
Gaar
No, they can't rule an amendment unconstitutional, because once the amendment is past it is part of the constitution. To say that part of the constitution is unconstitutional is a contradictory statment.

Okay, so let me see if I got this straight. The court can rule laws unconstitutional. Sure. But they can't repeal amendments. Check. So the Supreme Court can't allow a person to take a third Presidential term? That's directly from the amendment's language. There isn't another law to rule unconstitutional on that one.

Also, the court could rule a law unconstitutional if it is designed to enforce the Bill of Rights, but it was against the body of the rest of the constitution, correct? If you're going to make the distinction between the constitution and the amendments, then the Bill of Rights would fall squarely into the later, as it is a list of ten amendments.

Actually, if a 3rd Term Presidency was challenged ONLY on the basis of the 22nd Amendment, then you would be correct...

But if I challenged it on my Right to Free Will, Constitutional or not, and ask why it is that the Constitution can restrict my choice merely because the person has already held the position, and want to know where the Constitution garners ANY Right to restrict that choice based solely on that premise, what do you think the Courts would say?

And many wanted the Bill of Rights to be a part of the Constitution and not merely Amendments BECAUSE they knew some people, in the future, would make the argument that you just did about them…

Regards,
Gaar

But if I challenged it on my Right to Free Will, Constitutional or not, and ask why it is that the Constitution can restrict my choice merely because the person has already held the position, and want to know where the Constitution garners ANY Right to restrict that choice based solely on that premise, what do you think the Courts would say?

In that case, they'll tell you to bad! The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land. Your SOL.

You addressed Washington when 2000 was brought up so you have no room to complain. That is where I was getting it. You tried to change to Washington when Florida was being address. And you talk about me changing topics.

I don't? I didn't address Florida because it does exactly as YOU say it does...

Does that make MY POINT of the Washington case any less valid?

And hence the reason I didn't address it, it doesn't make my point and I agree with you. But again, that doesn't CHANGE the POINT I WAS MAKING, and therefore my request that you quit changing the SUBJECT!


Here's a tip. When someone brings something up, don't change the subject. Florida was brought up and you changed it to Washington. Good job.

You mean like YOU DID!?!?!

Sorry, but you changed the topic from Florida to Washington.

Mind showing me where you addressed Florida since it was brought up and you quoted and bolded it?

See above...

Is that a good enough answer, or is there something more you would like addressed?

By the way, you STILL have yet to address the Washington case... Unless of course your "Fine!" statement was your way of addressing it?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, if a 3rd Term Presidency was challenged ONLY on the basis of the 22nd Amendment, then you would be correct...

But if I challenged it on my Right to Free Will, Constitutional or not, and ask why it is that the Constitution can restrict my choice merely because the person has already held the position, and want to know where the Constitution garners ANY Right to restrict that choice based solely on that premise, what do you think the Courts would say?

And many wanted the Bill of Rights to be a part of the Constitution and not merely Amendments BECAUSE they knew some people, in the future, would make the argument that you just did about them…

Regards,
Gaar
Thats a seperate issue it might be wrong for them to do that and it might violate your natural rights, but since it dosen't violate your constitutional rights, since it is part of the constitution, the judiciary is not in posetion of the power necesary to do anything. The only way to fix such a situation would be through passing a new admendment repealing that admendment, this is what was done to end prohibition.

Actually, if a 3rd Term Presidency was challenged ONLY on the basis of the 22nd Amendment, then you would be correct...

But if I challenged it on my Right to Free Will, Constitutional or not, and ask why it is that the Constitution can restrict my choice merely because the person has already held the position, and want to know where the Constitution garners ANY Right to restrict that choice based solely on that premise, what do you think the Courts would say?

And many wanted the Bill of Rights to be a part of the Constitution and not merely Amendments BECAUSE they knew some people, in the future, would make the argument that you just did about them…

Regards,
Gaar

The Constitution gives you the right to vote. It does not give you the right to choose who will govern you. That is a combination of the total votes plus the rule of law. There are laws that say that convicted felons cannot run for office. Do you want to kill those too? What about the age restrictions in the constitution itself? I could argue that those infringe on my "Right to Choose." I want my 18-year-old brother to go to the House. According to the Constitution, that can't happen. What's the big deal?

As for the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has no power over them. Just like the rest of the Constitution or the Amendments. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Those arguments that I made are coming from your own ideas. That is not an issue because that is not the way that the Constitution and the Supreme Court work.

Thats a seperate issue it might be wrong for them to do that and it might violate your natural rights, but since it dosen't violate your constitutional rights, since it is part of the constitution, the judiciary is not in posetion of the power necesary to do anything. The only way to fix such a situation would be through passing a new admendment repealing that admendment, this is what was done to end prohibition.

And that's why I asked about Right's that "aren't enumerated" in the Constitution...

Do you believe that, because they didn't "enumerate" my Right to Life in the Constitution and only did so in the Declaration of Independence that it isn't "Constitutionally" protected?

Regards,
Gaar

snip

You did it with Florida to Washington first so don't even consider to criticize me for doing it unless you criticize yourself first for doing it.

And that's why I asked about Right's that "aren't enumerated" in the Constitution...

Do you believe that, because they didn't "enumerate" my Right to Life in the Constitution and only did so in the Declaration of Independence that it isn't "Constitutionally" protected?

Regards,
Gaar

Technically speaking, that's correct. The Declaration of Independance is not a legally binding document. The only way that it would be covered is under teh 9th Amendment, which states that not every right has been listed, but that does not mean that those rights can be taken.

Gaar, I'm way late here, but...

If the "incorrect" president was voted for, I'll tell you exactly what the Supreme Court would do:

They would find a way to side with the president that represents the political ideals of the majority.

For example, let's say it was known that Al Gore won an election, but George Bush was sworn in instead. The conservative Supreme Court would not only do nothing to correct the situation, but they might even get involved in arranging the fiasco early on.

What they should do, of course, is their best to interperet the constitution.

What the actually do is their best to push their ideals on our nation.

It's not a trivial point I make - the Supreme Court is not at all the body we wish it were.

The Constitution gives you the right to vote. It does not give you the right to choose who will govern you. That is a combination of the total votes plus the rule of law. There are laws that say that convicted felons cannot run for office. Do you want to kill those too? What about the age restrictions in the constitution itself? I could argue that those infringe on my "Right to Choose." I want my 18-year-old brother to go to the House. According to the Constitution, that can't happen. What's the big deal?

As for the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has no power over them. Just like the rest of the Constitution or the Amendments. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Those arguments that I made are coming from your own ideas. That is not an issue because that is not the way that the Constitution and the Supreme Court work.

Perhaps...

An argument can be made that a Felon, that has paid his debt to Society, may very well be eligible to be President, if it were ever challenged "Constitutionally"...

So, you are saying that the Supreme Court, or any other Court for that matter, doesn't rule on the Constitutionality of Amendments as they pertain to the Laws they enact under the Amendment?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps...

An argument can be made that a Felon, that has paid his debt to Society, may very well be eligible to be President, if it were ever challenged "Constitutionally"...

So, you are saying that the Supreme Court, or any other Court for that matter, doesn't rule on the Constitutionality of Amendments as they pertain to the Laws they enact under the Amendment?

Regards,
Gaar

No, they don't. They rule on those laws, not the amendments themselves. It might reflect on those amendments, but they can't rule on those amendments. They are out of the scope of the Supreme Court.

*snip*

Understood, and in many ways I agree...

My point here is to assertain what People believe to be the Supreme Courts "role" in matters of Constitutional Law, versus what my beliefs are on the matter.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, if a 3rd Term Presidency was challenged ONLY on the basis of the 22nd Amendment, then you would be correct...

But if I challenged it on my Right to Free Will, Constitutional or not, and ask why it is that the Constitution can restrict my choice merely because the person has already held the position, and want to know where the Constitution garners ANY Right to restrict that choice based solely on that premise, what do you think the Courts would say?

And many wanted the Bill of Rights to be a part of the Constitution and not merely Amendments BECAUSE they knew some people, in the future, would make the argument that you just did about them…

Regards,
Gaar

Well, since the laws of the United States are derived from the Constitution, and you don't have any constitutional "Right to Free Will," the federal courts would likely either dismiss your suit or issue a summary judgment against you; either way, you lose without even getting your day in court. In a perfect world, your lawyer would also be sanctioned twelve ways to Sunday for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, but that just doesn't happen often enough. A pity.

What it comes down to is that if you argue against a Constitutional proscription (such as the 22nd Amendment) on the basis of a vague and undefined "right" which isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, you're going to lose every time.

I should also point out that Amendments ARE part of the Constitution; they represent changes which have been made. Otherwise they'd be called appendices, or something. I'm not sure why you're making a big deal about the Bill of Rights being amendments, rather than part of the original body of the Constitution; from a legal standpoint, it doesn't make any difference, so it's not really relevant to the discussion here.

Understood, and in many ways I agree...

My point here is to assertain what People believe to be the Supreme Courts "role" in matters of Constitutional Law, versus what my beliefs are on the matter.

The Constitution would stand because its the Constitution. To say that something in the Constitution is unconstitutional renders the document almost worthless since anything in there could be considered unconstitutional.

And that's why I asked about Right's that "aren't enumerated" in the Constitution...

Do you believe that, because they didn't "enumerate" my Right to Life in the Constitution and only did so in the Declaration of Independence that it isn't "Constitutionally" protected?

Regards,
Gaar

I assume you know the answer to this. The constitution is a document to cede rights from state to federal gov'ts. In addition, citizens are assumed to have ALL rights, unless they are specifically limited by the constitution. This was a heavily discussed issue when the constitution was originally written (Madison was a big writer about this issue I believe.)

But people still don't understand this, so when there is a doubt, there are no less that TWO ammedments which clarify our rights.

SOOOO....As to guns being "protected" by the second ammendment...

EVEN if you don't understand the constitution, and believe that individuals are being granted gun rights...you are STILL MISSING A BASIC IDEAL. Guns (and all things) are our right, not because of the sceond ammendment, but because of our basic rights as citizens. We have an equal right to cars as we do guns.

Further, no constitutional guarantee means the gov't cannot REGULATE something, so gun registration and background checks are perfectly legitimate policies, regardless of your understanding of the second ammendment and the constitution.

That's just a little non-sequitor to irratate any gun-nuts out there.

No, they don't. They rule on those laws, not the amendments themselves. It might reflect on those amendments, but they can't rule on those amendments. They are out of the scope of the Supreme Court.

Isn't that what I just said?

And wouldn't ruling on the Law derived from an Amendment be construde as "affecting" the Amendment?

If there were a Law saying that people shouldn't eat Daisies and some Court Rules that it is UnConstitutional to stop anyone from eating Daisies wouldn't that decision affect any Amendment saying you can't?

Regards,
Gaar

I assume you know the answer to this. The constitution is a document to cede rights from state to federal gov'ts. In addition, citizens are assumed to have ALL rights, unless they are specifically limited by the constitution. This was a heavily discussed issue when the constitution was originally written (Madison was a big writer about this issue I believe.)

You MAKE MY POINT, about my Right to Free Will choice, very well... Thank You!

But people still don't understand this, so when there is a doubt, there are no less that TWO ammedments which clarify our rights.

SOOOO....As to guns being "protected" by the second ammendment...

EVEN if you don't understand the constitution, and believe that individuals are being granted gun rights...you are STILL MISSING A BASIC IDEAL. Guns (and all things) are our right, not because of the sceond ammendment, but because of our basic rights as citizens. We have an equal right to cars as we do guns.

Further, no constitutional guarantee means the gov't cannot REGULATE something, so gun registration and background checks are perfectly legitimate policies, regardless of your understanding of the second ammendment and the constitution.

That's just a little non-sequitor to irratate any gun-nuts out there.

Again, I believe you have served to reinforce my point.

Regards,
Gaar

Isn't that what I just said?

Nope

And wouldn't ruling on the Law derived from an Amendment be construde as "affecting" the Amendment?

Nope!

If there were a Law saying that people shouldn't eat Daisies and some Court Rules that it is UnConstitutional to stop anyone from eating Daisies wouldn't that decision affect any Amendment saying you can't?

If there was an Amendment stating that you can't eat daisies then you can't eat daisies. No matter what. The only way to make it legal again is to repeal the You Can't Eat Daisies Amendment and that can only be done with a You Can't Eat Daisies Amendment Repealed. No court can state that you can eat daisies because the Constitution says you can't.

If there was an Amendment stating that you can't eat daisies then you can't eat daisies. No matter what. The only way to make it legal again is to repeal the You Can't Eat Daisies Amendment and that can only be done with a You Can't Eat Daisies Amendment Repealed. No court can state that you can eat daisies because the Constitution says you can't.

Not as simple as that.

If there are two "conflicting" ammedments or clauses in the constitution, the Supreme Court would have to resolve any laws which supported one clause but violated another.

They might look at common practice or intention or other things, but the law is NEVER clear - all things are subject to interpretation.

That "cannot eat dasies" ammendment (or laws based on it) could come under fire because of its apparent arbitrariness, combined with our basic right for pursuit of hapiness. I'm not saying it would, just that it must be considered.

I, for one, enjoy eating daisies as I fire my semi-automatic 18-shot handgun into cans I set up on the fence in my red-state backyard.

You did it with Florida to Washington first so don't even consider to criticize me for doing it unless you criticize yourself first for doing it.

Again, Florida was NOT pertinent to the discussion and hence my reason for citing Washington State.

Something about wanting to stay on topic that you aren't understanding?

I criticize others because it was an attempt to divert the discussion from the POINT being made.

Again, I agree that Florida was an example where the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution, did I ever say it didn't? And so, I am left to wonder just what point is attempting to be made by this? I guess I could cite from it that it seems ok with most of you if they DO uphold the Constitutionality of something, as they are asked to do, but then you don't seem to think that they have any Right to declare something UnConstitutional, why is that? (Asking because I would like a response).

How would their "justifying" the Constitutionality work if they had no "Rights" to "not justify" the Constitution of something? I don't understand THAT Logic AT ALL!

Maybe it's because I REALLY AM as stupid as some here are suggesting...

Because we ALL KNOW that THEY couldn't be wrong, could they?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

If there was an Amendment stating that you can't eat daisies then you can't eat daisies. No matter what. The only way to make it legal again is to repeal the You Can't Eat Daisies Amendment and that can only be done with a You Can't Eat Daisies Amendment Repealed. No court can state that you can eat daisies because the Constitution says you can't.

Perhaps someone can identify the "Logic" used to support that position?

When the "Law" starts "codifying" itself as the “reasoning” behind a Law we are ALL in a SHIT LOAD of trouble!

And here I thought it had to codify itself through thoughtful reasoning of Constitutional Rights!

How was I to know that you could just "make-up" a Law and justify it because "we made it a Law"?!?!

And here I thought I was having an intelligent conversation...

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps someone can identify the "Logic" used to support that position?

No problem. Under the terms of the hypothetical:

1) There's a law prohibiting people from eating daisies.
2) There's a Constitutional amendment prohibiting people from eating daisies.

THEREFORE

3) The law is Constitutional.

See? It's not hard.

No problem. Under the terms of the hypothetical:

1) There's a law prohibiting people from eating daisies.
2) There's a Constitutional amendment prohibiting people from eating daisies.

THEREFORE

3) The law is Constitutional.

See? It's not hard.

Hmmmm....

That sounds a lot like....

http://datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm

Affirming the Consequent

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

Examples:
(i) If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta,
thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises
are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
(ii) If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an
increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus,
the mill is polluting the river.

Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion
could be false. In general, show that B might be a
consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish
deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.

References
Barker: 69, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 24, Copi and Cohen: 241


26 May 1995 / 06 January 1996

Or perhaps it is this one...

Appeal to Popularity
(argumentum ad populum)

Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to
be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust)
sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion"
because emotional appeals often sway the population as a
whole.

Examples:
(i) If you were beautiful, you could live like this, so buy
Buty-EZ and become beautiful. (Here, the appeal is to the
"beautiful people".)
(ii) Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority
government, so you may as well vote for them.
(iii) Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you
persist in your outlandish claims?

References:
Copi and Cohen: 103, Davis: 62

What I gave you was actually a straightforward pair of premises leading to a conclusion; it had nothing to do with Affirming the Consequent. Try this: instead of copying and pasting an irrelevant argument, explain where the line of reasoning breaks down. Here it is again, in simplified form:

1) There's a law.
2) That law is explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
3) Therefore, the law is Constitutional.

Go ahead, try it.

Perhaps someone can identify the "Logic" used to support that position?

When the "Law" starts "codifying" itself as the “reasoning” behind a Law we are ALL in a SHIT LOAD of trouble!

And here I thought it had to codify itself through thoughtful reasoning of Constitutional Rights!

How was I to know that you could just "make-up" a Law and justify it because "we made it a Law"?!?!

And here I thought I was having an intelligent conversation...

Ga

You dont seem to understand that in the United States, the aritlces and amendments of our constitution are seperate from what we commonly refer to as "laws."

In the US, in order for the constitution to be amended, an overwhelming majority is required and it is a difficult and rare process.

The constitution is essentially the rules which govern the laws, and there is a marked difference between changing the basic rules and making a law or a government action.

The rules under which our laws and government operate currently state that a president may not serve more than two terms. If a law was made saying that the president could serve a third term, that law would be unconstitutional.

If the american people wanted a president to serve a third term, they would have to go through the process of changing the constitution and creating a new rule under which a law could be made allowing for a third term.

The supreme court cannot change the rules in the constitution, it can only decide whether or not laws and government actions are in accordance with the rules.

The rules the constitution lays out are not subject to review by any body except the nation as a whole, and by no process other than passing a constitutional amendment.

Perhaps someone can identify the "Logic" used to support that position?

When the "Law" starts "codifying" itself as the “reasoning” behind a Law we are ALL in a SHIT LOAD of trouble!

And here I thought it had to codify itself through thoughtful reasoning of Constitutional Rights!

How was I to know that you could just "make-up" a Law and justify it because "we made it a Law"?!?!

And here I thought I was having an intelligent conversation...

Regards,
Gaar

Here it is again.

Constitution says that you can't eat daisies. Since this is in the Constitution, nothin short of repealing it will make it legal to eat daisies.

What I gave you was actually a straightforward pair of premises leading to a conclusion; it had nothing to do with Affirming the Consequent. Try this: instead of copying and pasting an irrelevant argument, explain where the line of reasoning breaks down. Here it is again, in simplified form:

1) There's a law.
2) That law is explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
3) Therefore, the law is Constitutional.

Go ahead, try it.

Not real sure HOW you "came-up" with #2 but ok...

You think they do a "Constitutional check" on every Law that is made?

If so, perhaps you can explain the "Patriot Act" or some of our "Drug Laws" that incarcerate People for Acts which harm NO ONE ELSE'S Right's?

Looks to me exactly like an... if A then B
B Therefore A... attempt.

Perhaps you can explain why it is not?

Again, this IS the "Law codifying itself" argument that I was making earlier, do YOU not see that?

And perhaps instead of just using an "insult" to try and "disprove" my example, you might be kind enough to use a bit of "reasoning" yourself, just as YOU have asked me to do?

Again, YOUR reasoning breaks down because you use the results and the premise to justify one another, otherwise known as "circular Logic"...

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~invar/circular.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm

An argument that uses its conclusion as one of its premises is most often called begging the question or circular reasoning. This classic case of circular reasoning has been used as an example for so long that we find only a few theists still using this fallacy...

Not real sure HOW you "came-up" with #2 but ok...


Your example assumed the existence of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting people from eating daisies. Hence, any law which prohibits people from eating daisies would be Constitutional, assuming it doesn't conflict with anything else in the Constitution. Can you understand that?


You think they do a "Constitutional check" on every Law that is made?

If so, perhaps you can explain the "Patriot Act" or some of our "Drug Laws" that incarcerate People for Acts which harm NO ONE ELSE'S Right's?

I'm given to understand that parts of the Patriot Act were found unconstitutional. As far as the drug laws go, the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) permits Congress to pass laws relating to interstate commerce, and that includes the drug trade. Naturally, any drug laws which violate, say, people rights under the Fourth or Eighth Amendments would be unconstitutional, but you'll note that there's no constitutional right to do drugs.

So, here's my question: What specific constitutional rights do America's drug laws violate? And by "constitutional rights" I mean "rights which are mentioned in the Constitution," not "rights that you just made up."


And perhaps instead of just using an "insult" to try and "disprove" my example, you might be kind enough to use a bit of "reasoning" yourself, just as YOU have asked me to do?

I have. This is the third time. Just out of curiosity, have you actually taken any sort of Government or Civics class? Because we seem to be running into difficulties talking about very basic legal concepts here, like the distinctions between congressionally-enacted laws and Constitutional amendments. If you need to back up the discussion a few steps, I'm okay with that.

Your example assumed the existence of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting people from eating daisies. Hence, any law which prohibits people from eating daisies would be Constitutional, assuming it doesn't conflict with anything else in the Constitution. Can you understand that?

No sorry, I don't "buy" the Logic in circular-reasoning.

Again, the Law CANNOT codify itself.

I'm given to understand that parts of the Patriot Act were found unconstitutional. As far as the drug laws go, the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) permits Congress to pass laws relating to interstate commerce, and that includes the drug trade. Naturally, any drug laws which violate, say, people rights under the Fourth or Eighth Amendments would be unconstitutional, but you'll note that there's no constitutional right to do drugs.

So, here's my question: What specific constitutional rights do America's drug laws violate? And by "constitutional rights" I mean "rights which are mentioned in the Constitution," not "rights that you just made up."

How about the "Right to pursue Happiness", or are You going to be one that says because THAT Right was NOT "enumerated" then it doesn't really exist?!?!

Then perhaps you might explain my Right to LIFE, which also was not enumerated?

I have. This is the third time. Just out of curiosity, have you actually taken any sort of Government or Civics class? Because we seem to be running into difficulties talking about very basic legal concepts here, like the distinctions between congressionally-enacted laws and Constitutional amendments. If you need to back up the discussion a few steps, I'm okay with that.

So, when "circular-Logic" has failed we revert to...

http://datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm

Changing the Subject

The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the person making
the argument instead of discussing reasons to believe or disbelieve the conclusion.
While on some occasions it is useful to cite authorities, it is almost never
appropriate to discuss the person instead of the argument.

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80
____________________________________

Yes I have... But it seems that YOU have either failed or NOT TAKEN ANY Logic Courses...

Given your inability to recognize "circular-Logic" in ACTION!

Regards,
Gaar

How about the "Right to pursue Happiness", or are You going to be one that says because THAT Right was NOT "enumerated" then it doesn't really exist?!?!

Then perhaps you might explain my Right to LIFE, which also was not enumerated?



You do not have inalienable rights to life or the pursuit of happiness...

And on your misunderstanding of the 'circular reasoning' fallacy:

Legal arguments are based in legal systems, and certain propositions have to be considered completely and unequivocally true for any sensical discussion to commence.

In the american legal system, constitutional amendments and articles are the highest criteria of validity for laws and government actions, there is no criteria by which to judge the validity of the constitution, it is required that the constitution be taken wholy as completely and always superior.

You're trying to argue legally in a framework other than the framework of the law, which is nonsense.

To discuss american law you have to accept as completely and always true that the constitution is the highest criteria of legality, if you refuse to accept this, you are incapable of making meaningful or sensical statements about american law.

This is why statements like "the supreme court can rule amendments unconstitional" cannot be answered by people who make sense, because the questions you ask do not make any sense or apply to any real systems.

It is obvious to me that this person has no clue as to how the American system of Government works.

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land (See Article VI).

The Amendments passed by Congress and the number of states required, become the Supreme Law of the Land.

Because they are the Supreme Law of the land, all laws got to be in accordance with the Supreme Law of the land. When it doesn't, SCOTUS steps in and can declare it unconstitutional. Only the LAW not the Amendment. An Amendment CANNOT be declared unconstitutional.

Because they are the Supreme Law of the land, all laws got to be in accordance with the Supreme Law of the land. When it doesn't, SCOTUS steps in and can declare it unconstitutional. Only the LAW not the Amendment. An Amendment CANNOT be declared unconstitutional.

Interesting... Since I never said it could be...

What I have said is, that the Laws that are derived from the Amendments CAN be declared UnConstitutional which, in affect, can lead to an Amendment not having any "teeth", as it were.

So while not directly declaring that an Amendment is actually UnConstitutional, the Supreme Courts decision can, in fact, make it so that it may as well be, can it not?

Is there something about that reasoning that YOU don't understand or that you find incorrect? (Again, asking because I would like an answer).

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps someone can identify the "Logic" used to support that position?

When the "Law" starts "codifying" itself as the “reasoning” behind a Law we are ALL in a SHIT LOAD of trouble!

And here I thought it had to codify itself through thoughtful reasoning of Constitutional Rights!

How was I to know that you could just "make-up" a Law and justify it because "we made it a Law"?!?!

And here I thought I was having an intelligent conversation...

Regards,
Gaar

Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into these inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.

Interesting... Since I never said it could be...

That was the purpose of this whole thread including the title "Constitution-UnConstitutional?" Or now are you denying the title of the thread?

What I have said is, that the Laws that are derived from the Amendments CAN be declared UnConstitutional which, in affect, can lead to an Amendment not having any "teeth", as it were.

No! You haven't said that before. You've been going on and on about how the Supreme Court can rule an Amendment of the Constitution unconstitutional. Now your focusing on the laws. Which can be declared unconstitutional. However, there are few laws that back up the Constitution with force.

So while not directly declaring that an Amendment is actually UnConstitutional, the Supreme Courts decision can, in fact, make it so that it may as well be, can it not?

Nope since its only declaring a law unconstitutional. Congress will go back and redo the law to make it constitutional.

Is there something about that reasoning that YOU don't understand or that you find incorrect? (Again, asking because I would like an answer).

Is there something about Congress can go back and revisit something and rewriting it to make it constitutional if a law is declared unconstitional? Congress has done that before. They have made an unconstitutional law pass constitutional muster by altering it.

You do not have inalienable rights to life or the pursuit of happiness...

So I guess YOU just "Threw out" the entire Declaration of Independence?!?!

And on your misunderstanding of the 'circular reasoning' fallacy:

Legal arguments are based in legal systems, and certain propositions have to be considered completely and unequivocally true for any sensical discussion to commence.

In the american legal system, constitutional amendments and articles are the highest criteria of validity for laws and government actions, there is no criteria by which to judge the validity of the constitution, it is required that the constitution be taken wholy as completely and always superior.

And YOU say it is I that lacks understanding?!?!

You're trying to argue legally in a framework other than the framework of the law, which is nonsense.

To discuss american law you have to accept as completely and always true that the constitution is the highest criteria of legality, if you refuse to accept this, you are incapable of making meaningful or sensical statements about american law.

This is why statements like "the supreme court can rule amendments unconstitional" cannot be answered by people who make sense, because the questions you ask do not make any sense or apply to any real systems.

So I guess the whole "Checks and Balances" discussion is "lost" on you...

http://law.indiainfo.com/constitution/privilage.html

...in the United States, it is the people who are sovereignty and supreme. The representative government is limited by the Constitution. Various authorities hold only delegated powers, delegated by the people through the Constitution. A law duly passed by the legislature and assented to by the Head of the State has to be proved true on the touch stone, the Constitution, as and when so challenged. The competent authority to conduct this test is the judiciary.

Something about that YOU don't get?

Regards,
Gaar

Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into these inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.

So while I point out the fallacies in the arguments used against my position, "personal attacks" and "circular-Logic", and point out the exact reasoning behind my argument, and your only rebuttal is a personal attack, without citing even ONE instance to support your position?!?!

How does that work?

Regards,
Gaar

So while I point out the fallacies in the arguments used against my position, "personal attacks" and "circular-Logic", and point out the exact reasoning behind my argument, and your only rebuttal is a personal attack, without citing even ONE instance to support your position?!?!

How does that work?

Regards,
Gaar

Nice try. I won't be sucked in.

I repeat my warning to others to avoid "discussion" with "Gaar."

That was the purpose of this whole thread including the title "Constitution-UnConstitutional?" Or now are you denying the title of the thread?

No! You haven't said that before. You've been going on and on about how the Supreme Court can rule an Amendment of the Constitution unconstitutional. Now your focusing on the laws. Which can be declared unconstitutional. However, there are few laws that back up the Constitution with force.

I guess YOU didn't READ the FIRST POST, which started this Thread...

Quote from that post...
______________________________
Many have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, with regards to some Amendments to the U.S. Constitution being "UnConstitutional" and point to the fact that they cannot "overturn" an Amendment...

And while it may be "technically" true that the Supreme Court is not given a Constitutional ability to strike down a Constitutional Amendment, they ARE tasked with judging the "Constitutionality" of ANY LAW that is derived from ANY Amendment.

So, while they CANNOT strike down an Amendment, they CAN make an Amendment basically "toothless" through the precedence of the Rule of Law in our Country.

In this way, the Supreme Court not only can but HAS made certain Laws toothless in the past by ruling against the Constitutionality of the Law.
___________________________________

Regards,
Gaar

Urantia II!

Answer my post and leave the personal attacks as well as Capital letters, except where appropriate, out of it.

Nice try. I won't be sucked in.

I repeat my warning to others to avoid "discussion" with "Gaar."

Then perhaps YOU wouldn't mind NOT POSTING to a Thread you have no desire in discussing the TOPIC?!?!

Thanks.

Regards,
Gaar

I guess YOU didn't READ the FIRST POST, which started this Thread...

Quote from that post...
______________________________
Many have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, with regards to some Amendments to the U.S. Constitution being "UnConstitutional" and point to the fact that they cannot "overturn" an Amendment...

And while it may be "technically" true that the Supreme Court is not given a Constitutional ability to strike down a Constitutional Amendment, they ARE tasked with judging the "Constitutionality" of ANY LAW that is derived from ANY Amendment.

So, while they CANNOT strike down an Amendment, they CAN make an Amendment basically "toothless" through the precedence of the Rule of Law in our Country.

In this way, the Supreme Court not only can but HAS made certain Laws toothless in the past by ruling against the Constitutionality of the Law.
___________________________________

Regards,
Gaar

Very nice quote. However, a Amendment cannot be made toothless! That is something that you don't seem to understand.

A law can be declared unconstitutional. However, Congress will go back and rewrite that law so that that it'll pass constitutional muster. When that happens, the old law is non-existent and the new law is enacted. This happens when a law is written to support the Constitution of the United States.

Take an American Civics AND an American Government class and you'll understand.

Urantia II!

Answer my post and leave the personal attacks as well as Capital letters, except where appropriate, out of it.

Now perhaps instead of YOU "giving" me my "opinion" so that you may dispute it, you would be kind enough to actually get back to the questions AS I HAVE posed them, instead of you "changing them" to suit YOUR points?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Now perhaps instead of YOU "giving" me my "opinion" so that you may dispute it, you would be kind enough to actually get back to the questions AS I HAVE posed them, instead of you "changing them" to suit YOUR points?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Constitution=Supreme Law of the Land!

Laws dealing with the Constitution have to pass Constitutional muster. If they don't, Congress starts over and does it again. They continue to do so, till it does pass Constitutional Muster. Therefore, the Amendments are never left Toothless.

Very nice quote. However, a Amendment cannot be made toothless! That is something that you don't seem to understand.

A law can be declared unconstitutional. However, Congress will go back and rewrite that law so that that it'll pass constitutional muster. When that happens, the old law is non-existent and the new law is enacted. This happens when a law is written to support the Constitution of the United States.

Take an American Civics AND an American Government class and you'll understand.

So now your argument is one of semantics?!?!

ROTFLMAO!!!

And are YOU now ADMITTING that I did NOT SAY the things YOU SAY I did?

Ok, so are you admitting MY Original premise is correct if we substitute "UnConstitutional" if Judged by the Supreme Court to be that, instead of "toothless"?

Regards,
Gaar

Corneliu, it isn't worth it. This is like explaining "not now" to my cats.

Then perhaps YOU wouldn't mind NOT POSTING to a Thread you have no desire in discussing the TOPIC?!?!

Thanks.

Regards,
Gaar

If YOU applied this STANDARD to YOURSELF, this Thread would NOT EXIST.

Gee. This is fun. :p

Constitution=Supreme Law of the Land!

Laws dealing with the Constitution have to pass Constitutional muster. If they don't, Congress starts over and does it again. They continue to do so, till it does pass Constitutional Muster. Therefore, the Amendments are never left Toothless.

Funny how you just "leave out" who actually "conducts" that "test of Constitutional muster", could it be... The Supreme Court, JUST AS I HAVE SAID THEY DO?!?!

And after the challenge has been met and the Law declared UnConstitutional, do YOU believe that it will STILL be enforced or would it be somewhat "toothless" after that point and UNTIL it has been "revised"?

Regards,
Gaar

So now your argument is one of semantics?!?!

ROTFLMAO!!!

And are YOU now ADMITTING that I did NOT SAY the things YOU SAY I did?

Ok, so are you admitting MY Original premise is correct if we substitute "UnConstitutional" if Judged by the Supreme Court to be that, instead of "toothless"?

Regards,
Gaar

Not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that an Amendment CANNOT be toothless. An Amendment needs to be backed up. That is what happened when the Blacks were given the right to vote. There was no back up legislation. They left it up to the states. Since then, the Government has backed up the Constitution with laws with teeth. When a law dealing with a particular amendment is declared unconstitutional, Congress passes another law to make sure that the Amendment still has teeth.

However, SCOTUS can overstep its bounds and declare something unconstitutional even if it isn't. I can point to Roe V Wade as SCOTUS overstepping its bounds as well as the Sodomy case in Texas. However, they made their decisions and though I may not like it, I respect it. SCOTUS can overturn their own decisions too and they have a few times. I don't have the numbers however.

Not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that an Amendment CANNOT be toothless. An Amendment needs to be backed up. That is what happened when the Blacks were given the right to vote. There was no back up legislation. They left it up to the states. Since then, the Government has backed up the Constitution with laws with teeth. When a law dealing with a particular amendment is declared unconstitutional, Congress passes another law to make sure that the Amendment still has teeth.

However, SCOTUS can overstep its bounds and declare something unconstitutional even if it isn't. I can point to Roe V Wade as SCOTUS overstepping its bounds as well as the Sodomy case in Texas. However, they made their decisions and though I may not like it, I respect it. SCOTUS can overturn their own decisions too and they have a few times. I don't have the numbers however.

Ok, and so I am left to wonder how ANY of THIS REFUTES my original premise?

Regards,
Gaar

Funny how you just "leave out" who actually "conducts" that "test of Constitutional muster", could it be... The Supreme Court, JUST AS I HAVE SAID THEY DO?!?!

They do and I said that when it doesn't pass it, Congress comes back with another law that does. Is that escaping your thick skull?

And after the challenge has been met and the Law declared UnConstitutional, do YOU believe that it will STILL be enforced or would it be somewhat "toothless" after that point and UNTIL it has been "revised"?

An Amendment will still be enforced. You can use the Amendment itself to justify it even though there isn't any law to back it up. It is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Amendment is.

Ok, and so I am left to wonder how ANY of THIS REFUTES my original premise?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually all of it.

Any Amendment can be used in a court of law. Say you tell me I can't peacefully protest. I only use the wording of the 1st Amendment in my case. There is no law backing it up. I would win because it gaurantees me the right to protest.

The Amendments itself can be used as a defense or to prosecute a case because it is the Supreme Law of the land. Therefore, they technically don't need any backing.

They do and I said that when it doesn't pass it, Congress comes back with another law that does. Is that escaping your thick skull?

An Amendment will still be enforced. You can use the Amendment itself to justify it even though there isn't any law to back it up. It is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Amendment is.

And IF they continue to "enforce" the one that is declared "UnConstitutional" then they will HAVE to RULE in the same manner as they did to Rule it UnConstitutional the FIRST time, unless and until it has been changed... Basically rendering it "toothless" until it is.

SO YOU don't agree with...

http://law.indiainfo.com/constitution/privilage.html

...in the United States, it is the people who are sovereignty and supreme. The representative government is limited by the Constitution. Various authorities hold only delegated powers, delegated by the people through the Constitution. A law duly passed by the legislature and assented to by the Head of the State has to be proved true on the touch stone, the Constitution, as and when so challenged. The competent authority to conduct this test is the judiciary.

Something about that YOU don't get?

Regards,
Gaar

And IF they continue to "enforce" the one that is declared "UnConstitutional" then they will HAVE to RULE in the same manner as they did to Rule it UnConstitutional the FIRST time, unless and until it has been changed... Basically rendering it "toothless" until it is.

You didn't get a single word I said did you? No you didn't. I said that if a Law is declared unconstitutional and it defends a Constitutional Amendment, The Supreme Court tells Congress why it was Unconstitutional and Congress FIXES IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the Fix it, they pass it and the President Signs the New Bill. This time it passes Constitutional Muster. BINGO we have a new law to defend a particular amendment.

NOW do you YOU get it?

SO YOU don't agree with...

http://law.indiainfo.com/constitution/privilage.html

...in the United States, it is the people who are sovereignty and supreme. The representative government is limited by the Constitution. Various authorities hold only delegated powers, delegated by the people through the Constitution.A law duly passed by the legislature and assented to by the Head of the State has to be proved true on the touch stone, the Constitution, as and when so challenged. The competent authority to conduct this test is the judiciary.

Thanks for proving my point. If it passes muster, then its law. If it doesn't, it gets rewritten so that it does pass muster. Every case has a reason why it was unconstitutional to help Congress make the law better.

I think you still need to take a Government AND a Civics test. BTW: Did you know that I'm majoring in Poli Sci? I suggest you look into it. Might make you think better.

Something about that YOU don't get?

Is there something about what I'm saying that YOU don't get?

Actually all of it.

Any Amendment can be used in a court of law. Say you tell me I can't peacefully protest. I only use the wording of the 1st Amendment in my case. There is no law backing it up. I would win because it gaurantees me the right to protest.

The Amendments itself can be used as a defense or to prosecute a case because it is the Supreme Law of the land. Therefore, they technically don't need any backing.

Actually, here is a BETTER test of whether it can be UnConstitutional yet also a Law...

The Drug Laws.

If Arrested for "using" a Drug, I have a Constitutional Right to "face a witness" to my crime as well as an accuser, right? Now, if I have harmed NO ONE ELSE'S Right's who exactly is the accuser? I have a Right to face an accuser so that I may be sure there has been an offense committed BEFORE anyone may charge me with a crime. And there cannot be a crime where an offense to another’s Constitutional Right's have not been infringed, can there?

So perhaps YOU might explain how the Drug Laws are Constitutional in this regard?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, here is a BETTER test of whether it can be UnConstitutional yet also a Law...

The Drug Laws.

If Arrested for "using" a Drug, I have a Constitutional Right to "face a witness" to my crime as well as an accuser, right? Now, if I have harmed NO ONE ELSE'S Right's who exactly is the accuser? I have a Right to face an accuser so that I may be sure there has been an offense committed BEFORE anyone may charge me with a crime. And there cannot be a crime where an offense to another’s Constitutional Right's have not been infringed, can there?

I think this was argued before that you totally ignored. Probably because it destroyed your way of thinking. As for the Case: 1) Yes, you use a drug you will face your accuser. That accuser can be anyone from someone witnessing it or selling a drug to a undercover cop or buying it from an undercover cop. 2) Whoever spotted you committing a crime. A crime is a crime wether you harm someone or not, 3) That is called a trial by Jury. 4) No. Taking drugs IS NOT a constitutional Right. That is what someone else on here already said. (See Article 1 section 8 point 3)

So perhaps YOU might explain how the Drug Laws are Constitutional in this regard?

Article 1 Section 8: Powers Granted to Congress.

Point 3: It may regulate foreign Trade and interstate trade-To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribe;

Something tells me English isn't Gaar's first language.

You didn't get a single word I said did you? No you didn't. I said that if a Law is declared unconstitutional and it defends a Constitutional Amendment, The Supreme Court tells Congress why it was Unconstitutional and Congress FIXES IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the Fix it, they pass it and the President Signs the New Bill. This time it passes Constitutional Muster. BINGO we have a new law to defend a particular amendment.

NOW do you YOU get it?

No, I am left to wonder what happens in the "interum"... The time AFTER it is declared UnConstitutional and the time it is "corrected"? Sometimes there is a fairly long "gap" between the two events, is there not?

So, do they continue to "enforce" the already UnConstitutionally declared Law, or is it basically rendered "toothless" until it is replaced?


Thanks for proving my point. If it passes muster, then its law. If it doesn't, it gets rewritten so that it does pass muster. Every case has a reason why it was unconstitutional to help Congress make the law better.

This makes it seem as though YOU think that every Law is reviewed by the Supreme Court BEFORE it becomes a Law, is that what you think?

So what about Laws that have yet to be challenged?

I think you still need to take a Government AND a Civics test. BTW: Did you know that I'm majoring in Poli Sci? I suggest you look into it. Might make you think better.

Huh, this sounds a lot like...

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)

Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert
opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or
otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An
argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on
second or third hand sources.


Examples:
(i) Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that
you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
(ii) Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight
money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although
Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this
point.)
(iii) We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald
Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five
minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a
microphone test.)
(iv) My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada
will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in
fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
(v) The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9
percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to
check the Citizen's sources.)

Proof:
Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the
field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the
experts in the field on this point.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 95, Davis: 69
__________________________________

And since you know nothing of my Education, I will leave it to others to Judge the "validity" of either of our "Arguments" here, rather than try and insult your Education in order to try and bolster my own arguments...

I believe my points stand well enough on their own.

Is there something about what I'm saying that YOU don't get?

No, I understand perfectly... Is there some reason you believe otherwise? Have I not addressed EACH of the questions you ask of me?

Regards,
Gaar

Something tells me English isn't Gaar's first language.

Join the club.

I think this was argued before that you totally ignored. Probably because it destroyed your way of thinking. As for the Case: 1) Yes, you use a drug you will face your accuser. That accuser can be anyone from someone witnessing it or selling a drug to a undercover cop or buying it from an undercover cop. 2) Whoever spotted you committing a crime. A crime is a crime wether you harm someone or not, 3) That is called a trial by Jury. 4) No. Taking drugs IS NOT a constitutional Right. That is what someone else on here already said. (See Article 1 section 8 point 3)

And yet WHOSE RIGHT were harmed?

You see, this is exactly the REASON you and your "circular-Logic" are wrong...

You believe you can JUSTIFY the Law, simply by saying it is a Law!

Again, I have a RIGHT to not be interfered with, as long as I interefere with no one myself...

It is BECAUSE YOU have been lead to believe that a Law is JUSTIFIED merely because it is a LAW that we get things happening like this!


Article 1 Section 8: Powers Granted to Congress.

Point 3: It may regulate foreign Trade and interstate trade-To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribe;

And what about a person who cultivates it themself and does not "Trade it" or otherwise "transport it" ANYWHERE!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

No, I am left to wonder what happens in the "interum"... The time AFTER it is declared UnConstitutional and the time it is "corrected"? Sometimes there is a fairly long "gap" between the two events, is there not?

I guess you don't have a brain do you? Its called debate in Congress.

So, do they continue to "enforce" the already UnConstitutionally declared Law, or is it basically rendered "toothless" until it is replaced?

The law? no. The Amendment? yes.

This makes it seem as though YOU think that every Law is reviewed by the Supreme Court BEFORE it becomes a Law, is that what you think?

Nope! I wish they were though. Would make Congress's job easier. However, most laws are challenged at Federal District Court, then to the Federal Appeals Court, THEN to SCOTUS.

So what about Laws that have yet to be challenged?

They stay on the books till they are challenged. If they are not challenged then by definition, they are constitutional till someone challenges it.

Huh, this sounds a lot like...

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)

How does it appeal to Authority when all someone has to do is get a lawyer and challenge something in court? If there is no basis for a suit, then it gets tossed out of court. I'm sure many laws are challenged constently that get tossed right out of court for lunacy. Some do go to the appeals court and thats where it gets noticed and they can either send it back to the Federal District Court or overrule it. Then one of the parties, depending on who they ruled in favor of, can take it to SCOTUS where they can hear it or not! If NOT then it stands as the Federal Appeal Courts stated, if so then the Circuit ruling is stayed till a hearing is convened. Its stays that way till they reach a decision.

And since you know nothing of my Education, I will leave it to others to Judge the "validity" of either of our "Arguments" here, rather than try and insult your Education in order to try and bolster my own arguments...

You've already insulted several people for not 1)listening and 2) telling them they are wrong when infact, you're the one that has been in the wrong several times.

I believe my points stand well enough on their own.

Your really are an idiot then because your points don't even hold up. Argue like this in a court and you'll be laughed right out of the Court House.

No, I understand perfectly... Is there some reason you believe otherwise? Have I not addressed EACH of the questions you ask of me?

1)No you don't. 2)Yes there is because I have brought up points and you attack me and not the points then you send in useless information that no one cares about because it is just that, worthless. You've been hammered in here several times and you dismiss them as wrong. You don't even acknowledge other points of view because they don't match yours. 3)Nope!

And yet WHOSE RIGHT were harmed?

Doesn't matter. Break the law, you go to jail. Unless of course a Jury acquits you of all charges.

You see, this is exactly the REASON you and your "circular-Logic" are wrong...

Care to show me where I am "Wrong?" I know how the US Justice System works. Do you?

You believe you can JUSTIFY the Law, simply by saying it is a Law!

Yep. Because that is how it is. It is the law and laws arement to be obeyed. They can be overturned by vote or declared unconstitutional by a court. Tell that happens, its remains the law.

Again, I have a RIGHT to not be interfered with, as long as I interefere with no one myself...

Not when your so called right violates the law of the country.

It is BECAUSE YOU have been lead to believe that a Law is JUSTIFIED merely because it is a LAW that we get things happening like this!

Welcome to Politics 101. I may not like a certain law, and believe me I don't like alot of them, but I respect the law. I follow the law. I may right my Congressmen to overturn it but that is all I can do. I could fight it but it isn't worth the trouble. I'm a law abiding citizen anyway so it doesn't matter to me.

And what about a person who cultivates it themself and does not "Trade it" or otherwise "transport it" ANYWHERE!?!?

Then it falls into State Law which is another can of worms.

By the way, as to your situation with a past president being elected once more according to a 70% majority...

If the Constitution were followed to a T, here's how things would happen:

If there is no clear majority winner of electoral votes besides the one who got the write in votes, than the House will elect the president. However, should they, by some miracle, pass an amendment repealing the 22nd amendment in a very short time, say, a couple months, the one with the write-in votes would still not be placed in the office of President.

This is due to the precedent of the post-facto law (not sure of the name) that states that you cannot be charged for a crime if it was legal when you did it. ie., if murder was legal and you killed someone, you couldn't be charged for murder if they made it illegal a year after you killed the person.

By reversing this we get...

You cannot be given an elected office you were inelligable for if it was illegal for you to hold it at the time you were elected, regardless of its current legality.

However, the man would be free to run in the next election.

I guess you don't have a brain do you? Its called debate in Congress.

The law? no. The Amendment? yes.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how an "Amendment" is "enforced" if the "Law" that was enforcing it is rendered "toothless"?


How does it appeal to Authority when all someone has to do is get a lawyer and challenge something in court...

I was talking about your statement that YOU SAY you are a Poli Sci Major and therefore some type of "Authority" on the matter.

I would say that, if what you are espousing here is what is being taught to Poli Sci students then it is no wonder we are in the terrible mess we are in now.


You've already insulted several people for not 1)listening and 2) telling them they are wrong when infact, you're the one that has been in the wrong several times.

Your really are an idiot then because your points don't even hold up. Argue like this in a court and you'll be laughed right out of the Court House.

And no one has insulted me?

And would you be refering to the points I made myself, or the ones YOU GAVE me so you could argue against them?

How many times DID YOU say I said things here that I didn't say?


1)No you don't. 2)Yes there is because I have brought up points and you attack me and not the points then you send in useless information that no one cares about because it is just that, worthless. You've been hammered in here several times and you dismiss them as wrong. You don't even acknowledge other points of view because they don't match yours. 3)Nope!

Again, I will let others Judge for themselves...

Hammered? You mean by YOUR use of "circular-Logic'?!?!

And when have YOU acknowledged another point of view here?

You try and convince people you have some type of Superior knowledge and understanding by stating you Major in Poli Sci, yet you obviously lack the understanding it takes to rightfully declare that SCOTUS is the final authority on the Constitutionality of an Amendment and the Laws derived from it. And that Amendments to the Constitution MUST be derived from the Rights afforded within it, and cannot just be "made-up" as you suggest.

It is likely because we have had Lawmakers that believe the way you do that we have come up with "Drug Laws" and "The Patriot Act" and those "sorts" of Laws...

Maybe someday people will LEARN how it is supposed to work, and we will be able to rid ourselves of people who feel they have some Right to dictate their Morals on the rest of us.

Regards,
Gaar

*snip*

And what if the resolution of a "challenge" to the 22nd say that the 22nd was NEVER Constitutional and therefore was never "enforceable"?

And what if they declared that, given it should have never been a Law, it is determined that no Law was broken in Electing him?

Or are you trying to say that they COULD NOT RULE in such a manner?

Regards,
Gaar

Doesn't matter. Break the law, you go to jail. Unless of course a Jury acquits you of all charges.


Sorry, I believe you are wrong!

The Constitution says I have a Right to face an accuser and YOu don't get to just "make one up" so that you can charge me with a crime...

You're going to have to find a REAL ONE!

And why doesn't it surprise me that YOU believe that the Government can just "make one up"?!?!

And this is how YOU believe the Constitution was written to "protect" MY Right's as an Individual?!?!

I think you have either "missed" some of those "classes" or we are now covering ground you have yet to cover in them...

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how an "Amendment" is "enforced" if the "Law" that was enforcing it is rendered "toothless"?

By using the Constitutional Amendment itself.

I was talking about your statement that YOU SAY you are a Poli Sci Major and therefore some type of "Authority" on the matter.

I would say that, if what you are espousing here is what is being taught to Poli Sci students then it is no wonder we are in the terrible mess we are in now.

Funny har har. At least I'm studying politics as well as history. You sir, just insulted me and its people like you that make me sick. I don't claim to be an authority on anything except college basketball but my bracket just blew up in my face so I'm no authority on anything yet. However, I do have a background thanks to my parents, one who was studying poli sci and another in the military. They taught me everything they knew and I'm learning the rest on my own. Politics is never clean and crisp. Remember that.

And no one has insulted me?

By a few yes but others just criticized you because you weren't listening.

And would you be refering to the points I made myself, or the ones YOU GAVE me so you could argue against them?

How many times DID YOU say I said things here that I didn't say?

And I corrected myself and have narrowed my arguements to a law and not an amendment.

Again, I will let others Judge for themselves...

Irrelevent statement

Hammered? You mean by YOUR use of "circular-Logic'?!?!

Again, how is it circular? You've been using circular logic the whole time.

And when have YOU acknowledged another point of view here?

You've made no point. Everything you said can be debunked by the US Code AND the Constitution.

You try and convince people you have some type of Superior knowledge and understanding by stating you Major in Poli Sci, yet you obviously lack the understanding it takes to rightfully declare that SCOTUS is the final authority on the Constitutionality of an Amendment and the Laws derived from it. And that Amendments to the Constitution MUST be derived from the Rights afforded within it, and cannot just be "made-up" as you suggest.

I don't try to convince people of anything. Now your getting very defense. I just thought I would be polite to inform you that I am studying this topic but I guess politeness isn't in your vocabulary. Forget I said it then. As for the Supreme Court, it is the final say on laws WHEN THEY ARE CHALLENGED by the people. They can only challenge the Law, not an AMENDMENT. They can only establish the Constitutionality of a law since an Amendment is already Constitutional by being in the Constitution. As for Amendments, no! Now there you are wrong. The XVIII Amendment prohibited Alcohol. It was repealed by the XXI amendment. The 3/5 compromise is in the US Constitution. It was repealed with the XIII Amendment. The Women were given the Right to Vote via Amendment. That isn't in the Constitution nor were their rights afforded in it. Neither was the rights given to African Americans AFTER the Civil War. They weren't even considered Citizens till the XIV and then given the right to vote in the XV. Those rights were not enumerated in the Constitution till those Amendments passed Congress.

It is likely because we have had Lawmakers that believe the way you do that we have come up with "Drug Laws" and "The Patriot Act" and those "sorts" of Laws...

The Drug Laws are legal under Article I Section 8 point 3 of the United States Constitution and the USA PATRIOT Act (Full name) rewrote laws that were already in the US Code. Also, the Judiciary Branch (Article III) has already declared some of it unconstitutional.

Maybe someday people will LEARN how it is supposed to work, and we will be able to rid ourselves of people who feel they have some Right to dictate their Morals on the rest of us.

Like you? You haven't learned how it works yet and no one will ever totally understand it. Not even me.

Sorry, I believe you are wrong!

Again, you tell someone they are wrong. You have done this several times.

The Constitution says I have a Right to face an accuser and YOu don't get to just "make one up" so that you can charge me with a crime...

I didn't say that it'll just be made up. However, you break a law and get caught, you will get tried in a court of law. That is facing your accuser. Then you can exercise your V and VI amendment rights.

You're going to have to find a REAL ONE!

A real one what?

And why doesn't it surprise me that YOU believe that the Government can just "make one up"?!?!

I didn't say that. Now your putting things to what I'm saying that I didn't say. If you get caught in a sting operation, then you'll face them. That is your accuser. Believe me, this happens all the time. You sell drugs to a cop, there's your accuser. You'll always have an accuse because if you don't, then there is no case. Why do you think rape trials are so limited? They person raped doesn't press charges.

And this is how YOU believe the Constitution was written to "protect" MY Right's as an Individual?!?!

Your rights as an individual stretch only as far as that Constitution lets you.

I think you have either "missed" some of those "classes" or we are now covering ground you have yet to cover in them...

I have only missed one government class and that was because I was sick. I do know what was covered though thanks to a wonderfull thing called the internet (BTW: It wasn't invented by Al Gore) I think you need to go back and retake politics 101 however because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

I would love to stay and spar but I have church in the morning. Good night. I'll respond to whatever you wrote if I have time before I leave.

::cough:: ok, talked this over with a couple of my friends...

The people don't elect the president, we're just the influence. Electoral College, remember? And even if they did elect him, the government would put a stop to it.

The Speaker of the House would become President

There, i answered it..

And what if the resolution of a "challenge" to the 22nd say that the 22nd was NEVER Constitutional and therefore was never "enforceable"?

And what if they declared that, given it should have never been a Law, it is determined that no Law was broken in Electing him?

Or are you trying to say that they COULD NOT RULE in such a manner?

Regards,
Gaar

Well, they'd have to provide some kind of proof that there is a previous constitutional precedent for a term limit being un-constitutional.

Also, you're confusing terms. Things stated in the Constitution are only laws in a colliquial sense. In a legal sense, they are not laws, but something greater. The Constitution is merely there to prevent anything but an amazingly overwhelming majority from opressing the minority. That's why I don't agree with the idea Constitutional Prohibition and this current Marriage Amendment going around.

When it comes to laws, they either conform to the Constitution or do not. Laws that do not conform sit around ignored for a while until someone manages to beat a case all the way up to SCOTUS which strikes the law down.

In the case of a law that extends on the enforcement of the Constitution being stricken down, thus rendering any specific part of the Constitution "toothless", as you say...this simply wouldn't happen unless the SCOTUS became so corrupt as to put their own personal lust for power before their jobs of interpreting the Constitution. At this point, it is the responsibility of the people to rid themselves of this corrupt body and either replace it or rework the government entirely. The idea that the Constition is un-Constitutional is logically absurd.

Afterall, government only rules with the consent of the governed.

In your hypothetical situation, should SCOTUS rule that he could be president, than they would be overstepping their bounds and the people would be obligated to overthrow them.

By using the Constitutional Amendment itself.


An Amendment is not a Law, is it? How do you "enforce" an Amendment?

Funny har har. At least I'm studying politics as well as history. You sir, just insulted me and its people like you that make me sick. I don't claim to be an authority on anything except college basketball but my bracket just blew up in my face so I'm no authority on anything yet. However, I do have a background thanks to my parents, one who was studying poli sci and another in the military. They taught me everything they knew and I'm learning the rest on my own. Politics is never clean and crisp. Remember that.

Didn't you say that YOU were a Poli Sci Major yourself?

By a few yes but others just criticized you because you weren't listening.

And just what Issue have I not addressed? Maybe they didn't like the answer, but I believe I have addressed everything they asked, if not please feel free to point any out that you believe I have not addressed.

And I corrected myself and have narrowed my arguements to a law and not an amendment.

Really!?!?

Then why am I asking how an Amendment might be "enforced" without a "Law"?!?!

Irrelevent statement

Perhaps to you, since YOU seem to believe that you are able to declare yourself the "Victor" while citing others "opinion" on the matter, as if you know what everyone else feels on the matter. I don't presume to know such things...

Again, how is it circular? You've been using circular logic the whole time.

I have explained, in detail, on more than one occasion in this Thread, if it continues to stump you, perhaps you should re-read those posts...

Do you need me to look them up and cite the posts numbers for you?

Perhaps YOU could also point out just ONE of MY circular-Logic arguments, as I have yours?

You've made no point. Everything you said can be debunked by the US Code AND the Constitution.

I will not accept circular-Logic as a reason for ANY Law...

Again, since you obviously lack the understanding it takes to resolve the arguments I have made, for yourself, I am left with letting the readers decide for themselves, unlike you...

I don't try to convince people of anything. Now your getting very defense. I just thought I would be polite to inform you that I am studying this topic but I guess politeness isn't in your vocabulary. Forget I said it then. As for the Supreme Court, it is the final say on laws WHEN THEY ARE CHALLENGED by the people. They can only challenge the Law, not an AMENDMENT. They can only establish the Constitutionality of a law since an Amendment is already Constitutional by being in the Constitution. As for Amendments, no! Now there you are wrong. The XVIII Amendment prohibited Alcohol. It was repealed by the XXI amendment. The 3/5 compromise is in the US Constitution. It was repealed with the XIII Amendment. The Women were given the Right to Vote via Amendment. That isn't in the Constitution nor were their rights afforded in it. Neither was the rights given to African Americans AFTER the Civil War. They weren't even considered Citizens till the XIV and then given the right to vote in the XV. Those rights were not enumerated in the Constitution till those Amendments passed Congress.

Forget that you said you were a Poli Sci Major? Why, did you lie about it so you could be viewed as some type of Authority on the matter?

Does this mean that, since they weren't enumerated they were UnConstitutional until they were?

Do YOU believe in Moral Absolutes or Reasoned Absolutes?

The Drug Laws are legal under Article I Section 8 point 3 of the United States Constitution and the USA PATRIOT Act (Full name) rewrote laws that were already in the US Code. Also, the Judiciary Branch (Article III) has already declared some of it unconstitutional.

And yet again you so skillfully avoid MY QUESTION...

The question was about people who do nothing but cultivate and use personally? YOU cited the Constitutional Right to make Drug Laws as the Laws regarding trade and transport over State lines, did you not?

Regards,
Gaar

I didn't say that it'll just be made up. However, you break a law and get caught, you will get tried in a court of law. That is facing your accuser. Then you can exercise your V and VI amendment rights.

A real one what?

An Accuser...

And when NO ONE ELSE'S Right have been harmed in ANY WAY, what is the crime? Why can't YOU answer that?

In order for there to be a "crime" SOMEONES Right's have to have been infringed upon... If we cannot agree on that, then the rest of the discussion is Moot.

Because YOU believe that the Government can just "make-up" an accuser (i.e. that someone has been harmed) when in FACT my Right is to "face" an accuser (i.e. some SPECIFIC person that I have done harm to). And if YOU cannot see that as a BASIC behind how a Law is to be made then your Education has failed you somewhere...

I didn't say that. Now your putting things to what I'm saying that I didn't say. If you get caught in a sting operation, then you'll face them. That is your accuser. Believe me, this happens all the time. You sell drugs to a cop, there's your accuser. You'll always have an accuse because if you don't, then there is no case. Why do you think rape trials are so limited? They person raped doesn't press charges.

What about a person who is discovered only because something happens that had nothing to do with anyone breaking a Law? For example... Someone is caught cultivating because a car hit their Garage where they were growing?

And are you really going to try and relate a case of rape, where there is definitely a victim, to our Drug Laws?

Your rights as an individual stretch only as far as that Constitution lets you.

I have only missed one government class and that was because I was sick. I do know what was covered though thanks to a wonderfull thing called the internet (BTW: It wasn't invented by Al Gore) I think you need to go back and retake politics 101 however because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

I would love to stay and spar but I have church in the morning. Good night. I'll respond to whatever you wrote if I have time before I leave.

So because I don't AGREE with what you are saying you are going to say I don't understand? I understand perfectly what you are saying, I just don't AGREE with it...

It is obvious that you believe that the Governments Right to make Laws is “Absolute”, where I believe that the Individuals Right to not have Laws made that are not “crimes” is “Absolute”…

In other words… You believe that the Constitution was written to ensure the Governments Right to make Laws, and I believe that the Constitution was written to ensure MY Right’s as an Individual.

Regards,
Gaar

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Granada
You do not have inalienable rights to life or the pursuit of happiness...



So I guess YOU just "Threw out" the entire Declaration of Independence?!?!

And on your misunderstanding of the 'circular reasoning' fallacy:


Quote:
Originally Posted by New Granada
Legal arguments are based in legal systems, and certain propositions have to be considered completely and unequivocally true for any sensical discussion to commence.

In the american legal system, constitutional amendments and articles are the highest criteria of validity for laws and government actions, there is no criteria by which to judge the validity of the constitution, it is required that the constitution be taken wholy as completely and always superior.



And YOU say it is I that lacks understanding?!?!


Quote:
Originally Posted by New Granada
You're trying to argue legally in a framework other than the framework of the law, which is nonsense.

To discuss american law you have to accept as completely and always true that the constitution is the highest criteria of legality, if you refuse to accept this, you are incapable of making meaningful or sensical statements about american law.

This is why statements like "the supreme court can rule amendments unconstitional" cannot be answered by people who make sense, because the questions you ask do not make any sense or apply to any real systems.



So I guess the whole "Checks and Balances" discussion is "lost" on you...

http://law.indiainfo.com/constitution/privilage.html

...in the United States, it is the people who are sovereignty and supreme. The representative government is limited by the Constitution. Various authorities hold only delegated powers, delegated by the people through the Constitution. A law duly passed by the legislature and assented to by the Head of the State has to be proved true on the touch stone, the Constitution, as and when so challenged. The competent authority to conduct this test is the judiciary.

Something about that YOU don't get?

Ga


---


1) The declaration of independence isnt the constitution, our laws are not bound by it, you learn that in secondary school in the US.

2) You've proved it with that remark.

3) On the contrary, you dont understand the difference between an amendment and a law which a legislature passes and which the judiciary can declare unconstitutional and a constitutional amendment or article.

4) the representative government is limited by the constitution - precisely.
the judiciary, as it is pointed out there, is charged with testining the constitutionality of laws.
that is
whether or not laws passed by the legislature and executive are in accordance with the amendments to the constitution.
NOT whether or not amendments are in accordance with Urantia II's Ideas About What Is Correct.

Do you understand any of that?

Well, they'd have to provide some kind of proof that there is a previous constitutional precedent for a term limit being un-constitutional.

And I believe that it is YOU that would need to show "Constitutional precedence" FOR Term limits...

Since it is YOU that is trying to "limit" my Right's in some manner the onus should be on the one who wants to "take-away" a Right not the one trying to preserve it, shouldn't it?

Regards,
Gaar