The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice

[Stickfight]

Heh. Another one of these "it's constitutional because the supreme court says so". What a stupid argument.

The constitution, as it was written and intended, did not authorize the federal government to do 90% of the crap that it does. That is why I call it 'unconstitutional'.

If you define it differently, as in 'whatever the partisan judicial branch says', then fair enough. But let's not pretend that we are arguing on the same plane at all.

I define it the same way the Constitution does. You don't, but I do.

i do because I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is a big part if what sets our democracy apart from the failed ones.

 

[GunsNstuff]

He may not, but the SCOTUS did and they supported the Individual Mandate. So You The Person has no right, at this point, to complain. The legal process is done and the Individual Mandate is Constitutional. Sorry.

A court saying something is Constitutional does not make it Constitutional. Sorry. It makes it the law for the time being and it in no way whatsoever takes away an individual's right to complain about 5 lawyers making a stupid or incorrect decision. Again, sorry.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So you don't care about the authority the Constitution gave the Judicial branch? I guess the Constitution is only valid if it results in things YOU believe in

Johnny M. found judicial review floating in the penumbra.

Johnny R. found the power of unlimited government floating about in the penumbra of taxes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A court saying something is Constitutional does not make it Constitutional. Sorry. It makes it the law for the time being and it in no way whatsoever takes away an individual's right to complain about 5 lawyers making a stupid or incorrect decision. Again, sorry.

If one USSC says something is Constitutional, it's Constitutional. If a later USSC says the same law is UnConstitutional, it's UnConstitutional... and both courts are correct. That's the way our law was written.

 

[steveh_131]

So you don't care about the authority the Constitution gave the Judicial branch? I guess the Constitution is only valid if it results in things YOU believe in?

I do. That doesn't mean they can't get it wrong.

 

[steveh_131]

If one USSC says something is Constitutional, it's Constitutional. If a later USSC says the same law is UnConstitutional, it's UnConstitutional... and both courts are correct. That's the way our law was written.

Fine, define it that way.

What word should I be using when I point out that their rulings are not at all in line with the spirit or the wording of the constitution?

 

[Stickfight]

So you don't care about the authority the Constitution gave the Judicial branch? I guess the Constitution is only valid if it results in things YOU believe in?

Enemies of the Constitution always believe those things.

 

[GunsNstuff]

As soon as you show me where it says INGO partisans decide what is or is not Constitutional.


A whole wide variety of stuff has been found Constitutional over the years that isn't explicitly mentioned, as per the process described in the Cobstitution. Again, a lot of people only like the Constitution when it produces they outcome they want and I understand you guys, being self serving is hard to give up. But I prefer to follow it all the time.

I am afraid that you do not understand your own argument. I imagine that if SCOTUS decides that you have no freedom of speech, you would agree that their decision is unconstitutional. I imagine you would argue that you know what the Constitution says, you know you can say what you want and that 5 people ignoring what is clearly Constitutional does not make your right to free speech unconstitutional. You would know that amending or repealing the 1st Amendment would be the only way to make something that is constitutional, unconstitutional.

I don't think you'd believe that.

 

[Streak]

I do. That doesn't mean they can't get it wrong.

By whose view do you consider wrongness? Yours? Do you REALLY want that authority and responsibility, to be the ultimate say in what is/what is not Constitutional? Are you suggesting that those who understand our laws and were charged by Legislative AND Executive branches of government to pass judgement on laws are not qualified?

 

[GunsNstuff]

If one USSC says something is Constitutional, it's Constitutional. If a later USSC says the same law is UnConstitutional, it's UnConstitutional... and both courts are correct. That's the way our law was written.

Wrong. If 1 court says a law is Constitutional then it's the law. That does not make an unconstitutional law, constitutional. Segregation was never constitutional. It was however said to be at one time by a court full of flawed human beings.

 

[Chewie]

He may not, but the SCOTUS did and they supported the Individual Mandate. So You The Person has no right, at this point, to complain. The legal process is done and the Individual Mandate is Constitutional. Sorry.

OOPS, point of law here Streak.....Since SCOTUS deemed it a TAX the Senate can not ENACT this as a law. As written in the constitution any new tax must be levied by the House and not the Senate. This is currently on its way through the appellate court in DC.

SORRY Yourself!

 

[buckstopshere]

Awesome! I like it. Whatever keeps the .gov "shut down".

The individual mandate forcing Americans to buy something was unconstitutional. Calling it a tax was what was deemed constitutional which was not how the progressives positioned the ACA until it was the only way they could keep it. SCOTUS (Roberts in particular) kicked the can over to the House to deal with as a tax which was a cowardly move IMO.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

As I understand it, the Constitution gives the Courts, co-equal status in government, but it was the Supreme Court that took to itself the authority to decide the constitutionality of particular laws, not the Constitution which granted them that authority. In a perfect world, the Courts do not make up law; they judge by the law, or they determine the constitutionality of a particular law. I don't know how far back the rot goes, but the Courts have taken it upon themselves to legislate, which is not their constitutional function. So the Courts, far from being the final arbiters of the Constitution, have contributed to the corruption of government just as much as the Executive and Legislative branches have done.

 

[Chewie]

By whose view do you consider wrongness? Yours? Do you REALLY want that authority and responsibility, to be the ultimate say in what is/what is not Constitutional? Are you suggesting that those who understand our laws and were charged by Legislative AND Executive branches of government to pass judgement on laws are not qualified?

They have determined that they can interpret the constitution in any way the suits their need. Right or WRONG.

 

[Streak]

OOPS, point of law here Streak.....Since SCOTUS deemed it a TAX the Senate can not ENCATE this as a law, as written in the constitution any new tax must be levied by the House and not the Senate. This is currently on its way through the appellate court in DC.

SORRY Yourself!

Actually I believe the relevant part of the Constitution you're speaking of is the Bills of Revenue which is Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which states

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The relevant text

This is how the SCOTUS justified the individual mandate. A Bill of Revenue is also known as a tax. I'd be surprised if the appellate court can shoot this one down, although I'm curious how an appellate court can overturn a SCOTUS decision. Can you explain that process to me? Last I knew the SCOTUS was the highest court and no lower court can overturn a higher court's decision.

 

[GunsNstuff]

By whose view do you consider wrongness? Yours? Do you REALLY want that authority and responsibility, to be the ultimate say in what is/what is not Constitutional? Are you suggesting that those who understand our laws and were charged by Legislative AND Executive branches of government to pass judgement on laws are not qualified?

LMAO It is amazing how much faith you put in politicians. First you assume that 9 people who rarely every agree 100% with each other, understand the law. Funny, since they so rarely agree with one another. What is it that they understand but can't agree on? Second, you assume politicians are interested in the law and not their political agenda when appointing these people to the Supreme Court. You also assume these judges don't have political agendas and are only concerned with the constitutionality of their rulings.

You seem to think that if the SCOTUS rules in a way on a law that no one should disagree with it. That the matter is settled. I think that is ridiculous. If that were true then slavery being ruled as Constitutional was settled and no one had a right to disagree, it should have been considered settled law and no opposition to it should have ever of arisen & therefore we should have it today.

Or do you think a law ruled Constitutional can be again challenged when a new justice appears on the scene? A new justice that you say "understand our laws and were charged by Legislative AND Executive branches of government to pass judgement on laws", which should mean he/she would rule the same way as the justice they replaced did.

 

[Streak]

As I understand it, the Constitution gives the Courts, co-equal status in government, but it was the Supreme Court that took to itself the authority to decide the constitutionality of particular laws, not the Constitution which granted them that authority. In a perfect world, the Courts do not make up law; they judge by the law, or they determine the constitutionality of a particular law. I don't know how far back the rot goes, but the Courts have taken it upon themselves to legislate, which is not their constitutional function. So the Courts, far from being the final arbiters of the Constitution, have contributed to the corruption of government just as much as the Executive and Legislative branches have done.

Actually there are different levels of court. The Supreme Court is at the top. Lower courts cannot overturn (and last I knew have never overturned) a higher ranking court's decision.

 

[Chewie]

Actually I believe the relevant part of the Constitution you're speaking of is the Bills of Revenue which is Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which states


Very good and correct, ACA did not originate in the House, it originated in the Senate, and being deemed a TAX as applied to all US citizens cannot be introduced by the Senate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wrong. If 1 court says a law is Constitutional then it's the law. That does not make an unconstitutional law, constitutional. Segregation was never constitutional. It was however said to be at one time by a court full of flawed human beings.

Actually, it's very right. Let me direct you to the text of the original constitution:

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under
the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be
delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due



No court made such ruling that allowed this to come into being, this is EXACTLY as it appeared in the first drafting of the Constitution. If a court at the time made a decision that support this Article, then the Court's ruling would be 100% Constitutional. Do you or I believe that a person escaping to freedom in another state should be compelled to returned to bondage? Hopefully not, as that is quite obviously a natural rights violation. Obviously today, such a law would be UnConstitutional... but what if a court had struck the law down as being UnConstitutional, back then, would you agree or disagree with the ruling? The point I'm trying to make is that morality and natural rights have always taken a back seat to procedure as far as the Constitution is concerned.

 

[Streak]

LMAO It is amazing how much faith you put in politicians. First you assume that 9 people who rarely every agree 100% with each other, understand the law. Funny, since they so rarely agree with one another. What is it that they understand but can't agree on? Second, you assume politicians are interested in the law and not their political agenda when appointing these people to the Supreme Court. You also assume these judges don't have political agendas and are only concerned with the constitutionality of their rulings.

You seem to think that if the SCOTUS rules in a way on a law that no one should disagree with it. That the matter is settled. I think that is ridiculous. If that were true then slavery being ruled as Constitutional was settled and no one had a right to disagree, it should have been considered settled law and no opposition to it should have ever of arisen & therefore we should have it today.

Or do you think a law ruled Constitutional can be again challenged when a new justice appears on the scene? A new justice that you say "understand our laws and were charged by Legislative AND Executive branches of government to pass judgement on laws", which should mean he/she would rule the same way as the justice they replaced did.

I assume those 9 people understand the law well enough to argue it. I do not want 9 people who all agree, I want 9 people who disagree and then can argue back and forth until there is an agreement.

Judges may have political agendas on other courts...however the SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment for the very reason that it invalidates any need to have political agendas. A liberal Justice could stop all over the Democrats with every vote for the rest of his/her life and nothing, short of murder, can be done about it.

This is why I don't believe in term limits for the highest court of the land...it'll become like elections and justices would be bought off. The way it works now is that the President nominates Justices as seats are opened up and the Senate confirms or denies that vote. That Justice sits forever on that bench so that he/she can't be bought off. There'd be nothing for him/her to gain politically.