So, you give me a better system. If the USSC should not decide, if judges should not decide, who then? We vote for representatives. They create laws. The Judiciary interprets and applies the laws as well as dispute resolution. We defer to courts in lieu of armed conflict for resolution. We, as enforcers of the law, swore to uphold the Constitution. I've had too many friends die while doing just that on this department. While I think some of our laws are useless and defer to my "officer discretion" in enforcing them. Useless does NOT mean unconstitutional. Humans create the laws, humans enforce the laws, humans interpret the laws. Humans are flawed of course hence the need for judicial review. I hear a lot of *****ing with few applicable solutions.They guy with the gun enforcing the law, be it constitutional or otherwise, and defending the system with his life?
There is the rub. You and I can look at the same law or legal decision and you can think it was unconstitutional and I think it was constitutional. Who is right? Who decides?
Do you think it is constitutional? I absolutely do not, and I'm convinced that in a constitutional debate, it would be found not to be, and stopped
You believe asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. Ok, that's fine. Can you please describe the current process of civil asset forfeiture that makes it unconstitutional? While some jurisdictions are over using it or flat lying to get results, that does not determine constitutionality.We each decide for ourselves, but the wording of the federal, as well as the state Constitutions, though somewhat archaic, is very clear. None of those 2000 page laws back then. All laws must proceed from the Constitution, though far too many have been allowed otherwise. We may debate the meaning, but whomever convinces the most with reasonable argument, shall determine the course of events. I can understand holding an opinion against debate, but not being so closed minded as to be immune to being convinced otherwise. Civil asset seizure, for example. It's happening, pretty frequently. Do you think it is constitutional? I absolutely do not, and I'm convinced that in a constitutional debate, it would be found not to be, and stopped. But that's just one example. There are many others.
Stuck with? Au contraire, we are fortunate to live in a land where this is the legal system we have. While I may not agree with some decisions, I defend the system with my life if required. We are "stuck" with the greatest system of governance on the planet. Of course it is not perfect and not all the decisions will be great. You can disagree with their decisions all you want, you just have to abide by them. I have to.
Well, we have nothing to worry about then. No secession will ever happen since we cannot even get people to vote.I can't remember a more politically motivated supreme court as the one we have now, and what is even more ridiculous is the power these school boards some how have come up with. As far as secession goes I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the people decide the government is no longer responsible to the will of the people we can throw their butts out and start a new government that sounds like secession to me.
As far as secession goes I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the people decide the government is no longer responsible to the will of the people we can throw their butts out and start a new government that sounds like secession to me.
Yeah, that too.Fred, you just described November 4th.
I agree with this. Get at the root of the problem first or at least tryI don't think there is anything preventing a state from wanting to leave the Union and petitioning Congress to pass a law to allow it. However, leaving unilaterally? No, nothing vaguely legal about it. Nor is there anything vaguely "totalitarian" about it. States largely govern what happens in their borders, with too much federal interference, agreed, but the states have representation in Congress as well.
Personally, I'd be a fan of repealing the 17th Amendment so that state legislatures regained the proper amount of power in the federal government as designed.
So, you give me a better system. If the USSC should not decide, if judges should not decide, who then? We vote for representatives. They create laws. The Judiciary interprets and applies the laws as well as dispute resolution. We defer to courts in lieu of armed conflict for resolution. We, as enforcers of the law, swore to uphold the Constitution. I've had too many friends die while doing just that on this department. While I think some of our laws are useless and defer to my "officer discretion" in enforcing them. Useless does NOT mean unconstitutional. Humans create the laws, humans enforce the laws, humans interpret the laws. Humans are flawed of course hence the need for judicial review. I hear a lot of *****ing with few applicable solutions.
Yes, quite right, outwitted by a cartoon Detective Win Bear, how sad for me. Once again I wilt away in the face of the intellectual firepower of the Neo-Lost Causers with their comics and want-based tautologies.