Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


King George.

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
If I recall correctly, Lincoln was dead very shortly after the war had ended. There was still martial law in the south immediately following the war, much as there is in any warzone immediately following a conflict. It just so happens that in this particular case the occupied territory was full of 'Americans'.
That sounds about right. The south wanted to create their own country. The north invaded to sieze their territory and force them to return to the Union. You can't expect to be protected by the Constitution of a country you have declared war against . . . unless you are the lawyer for an Islamic terrorist, and then you can demand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
Given how little the Constitution actually matters to the execuction of American government, the answer is quite often "yes."
Well now, given Bush's current attitute towards powers he thinks he has, certainly he must not think that he has the ability to do the things the patriot act allows without it. Else he wouldn't have asked for it. Since he has been quite brazen and unappologetic in about ever other situation where he believes he has the power of greyskull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
Actually, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act was challenged several times in the 70s, but with no success. I completely agree with the statement in bold. Just look at how much damage ignoring and disregarding the 9th and 10th Amendments has done.
You are right, it has been challenged. Though seeing as it has been upheld does legitamize it a bit. (that is going to get me in trouble).

Yeah, the 9th and 10th... so abused... so forgotten...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Well, rather than being smug perhaps you can show me an example of where a state judge made a decision which changed laws in other states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
No.
Good, I would hope that would be your answer. Now, how is deciding that a certain law or practice being 'unconstitutional' in other situations any different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
You don't need to change the Constitution. You just need to find a court that will "interpret" the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean.
While true, you only ensure that your view would be solidified if you could change the document to explicitly state what you would like it to no? Besides, as a resident of MA, regardless of my opinions on the matter. By reading the sections, there is no way that the opposing view can be defended on paper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
And people who support the court's decisions often make this claim:
ClaimPeople who disagree with the decisions of courts often claim "Judicial Activism," despite not having any base to do so.

It is equally unimpressive.
Whether I support it or not, I believe it is only in a few rare exceptions that the judiciary ever writes new law. You can be unimpressed all you want, the notion that judical activism is running rampant in this country is false.

A decision which I find to be one of the most shameful in the Supreme Court's recent history was the decision to allow the state of Conn. to use 'emminent domain' to take over a low income housing area and turn it over to private developers to raise revenue in the city of new haven. Though I don't cry, 'judical activism' Since they didn't 'legislate'. What I do wonder, is what the hell was going through the 5 justice's who voted in favor of the state's minds. Since I simply can't imagine it.

Quote:
Well now, given Bush's current attitute towards powers he thinks he has, certainly he must not think that he has the ability to do the things the patriot act allows without it. Else he wouldn't have asked for it. Since he has been quite brazen and unappologetic in about ever other situation where he believes he has the power of greyskull.
So . . . you are expecting Bush to behave in a way that is consistent and coherent when dealing with Congress and public opinion? You may want to rethink that.
Quote:
Well, rather than being smug perhaps you can show me an example of where a state judge made a decision which changed laws in other states.
But smug is such a good look for me.
Quote:
While true, you only ensure that your view would be solidified if you could change the document to explicitly state what you would like it to no?
No.
Quote:
A decision which I find to be one of the most shameful in the Supreme Court's recent history was the decision to allow the state of Conn. to use 'emminent domain' to take over a low income housing area and turn it over to private developers to raise revenue in the city of new haven. Though I don't cry, 'judical activism' Since they didn't 'legislate'. What I do wonder, is what the hell was going through the 5 justice's who voted in favor of the state's minds. Since I simply can't imagine it.
I agree. It was the single greatest blow to "the right to life, liberty, and property" since the legalization of property tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
So . . . you are expecting Bush to behave in a way that is consistent and coherent when dealing with Congress and public opinion? You may want to rethink that.
Point taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
But smug is such a good look for me.
I will have to concede that point, while noticing that you haven't provided anything. Though, I suppose I could help you out there. Though I would have thought my mention on other threads of the recent marriage decisions in MA would provide you ample ammunition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
I agree. It was the single greatest blow to "the right to life, liberty, and property" since the legalization of property tax.
This is why you would like new hampire. Justice Stevens is from there, and immediately after this decision was reached. Several people from the town want to seize his home and turn it into a museum/hotel due to the historic nature via the loss of individual rights in this country. Since NH still has a 'town hall' local government, all they would need to do is convice 3 out of 5 town council members to approve it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liv
That sounds about right. The south wanted to create their own country. The north invaded to sieze their territory and force them to return to the Union. You can't expect to be protected by the Constitution of a country you have declared war against . . . unless you are the lawyer for an Islamic terrorist, and then you can demand it.

Well, to be fair, and I am always fair, There was the matter of the assault of property belonging to the Federal government at Ft. Sumpter. That would make it an insurrection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Well, to be fair, and I am always fair, There was the matter of the assault of property belonging to the Federal government at Ft. Sumpter. That would make it an insurrection.
It was an insurrection for a single state. It was a succession for the rest.

Well right but we had to go through those states to get to SC. Besides, there was no legal justification to succession, Lincoln declared the succession null and void and vis-vis Might makes Right, ect. ect.

Quote:
Lincoln declared the succession null and void and vis-vis Might makes Right, ect. ect.
Sounds a lot like our current president . . .

Well, technically, Lincoln was correct. None of the succeding states did so in a legal fashion. They had all ratified the constitution, and simply because you are about to become outnumbered in the senate, and thereby unable to stop certain laws from being passed, you quit? Doesn't seem quite right to me. Then again, there is no legal method to properly succeed from the U.S. unless the US decides to let you go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Well, technically, Lincoln was correct. None of the succeding states did so in a legal fashion. They had all ratified the constitution, and simply because you are about to become outnumbered in the senate, and thereby unable to stop certain laws from being passed, you quit? Doesn't seem quite right to me. Then again, there is no legal method to properly succeed from the U.S. unless the US decides to let you go.
Technically, there was no legal way to leave the British Monarchy, either.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status