We need a new supreme court
|
|
 
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
 Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
seriously how does someone performing a **** act interfere into your own civil liberties? please tell me how it does.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| lauren000 wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | hitachi wrote: | i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave. |
life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy. |
Like I said, you perversion of **** orientation, why don't you quote the part of the constitution that guarantees sodomy, rather than blabbing your mouth about how much you like it in the butt because your fake p***y just doesn't do it for you. |
all men are created equal. Does that mean women aren't recreated equal? Is it all straight, white, rich men are created equal? Guarantee to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Stop acting like such a victim, this law has very little bearing on your everyday encounters and I get the impression you're just looking to start drama. As allways really, you're trying to rile up a few select few people hoping to get some original response to the same rehashed b******t you peddle on a biweekly basis. And what does it say about our country when we're more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? |
Just as I predicated. bla bla bla, I don't have a real p***y, bla bla bla. Where's the quote from the constitution I was looking for? Oh yeah...there isn't one. Why? Because I'm right. The supreme court does not base its decisions on the constitution.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | seriously how does someone performing a **** act interfere into your own civil liberties? please tell me how it does. |
States' rights. Federalism. Look into it. A state has the right, by order of amendment 10, to outlaw sodomy. Texas' right was taken away by 5 people who live 1000 miles away who base their laws on nothing but their own whimsy. Now they've allowed a law that abridges speech that was passed by congress....hmmmm, those words sound familar.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
the supreme court rules on case law meaning past descisions which is how great britain's ystem works since we have teh same system. however GB does not have a constitution they just use case law. Our own system works off of the same theory of "stare decisis" which means let the descision stand. Thie precedent is how our legal system works, in essence if there is no case law for a certain case they will make one for it. This is how judicial review came about (marbury v. Maison)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
west wing!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
what you lack in knowledge you make up for in google. in the United States you are not able to infringe onto the rights of another even if this does limit your ability of freedoms yourself this is why we have a judicial system.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
ok so how does this prove your point? yeah that's right the constitution does not protect bigotry it just says you can practice your religion, while you are still unable to infringe on another's freedoms which is basically what you people try to do. so again, why did you google something that has no weight on your point whatsoever??
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | seriously how does someone performing a **** act interfere into your own civil liberties? please tell me how it does. |
Its not about the rightness or wrongness of gay ****, its about the Supreme Court's position in our government to make a judgment about that.
Personally, I think two guys should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors. But its the job of the legislature to make that legal, not the courts.
Although two people having **** doesn't interfere with your own liberties, the SC making such decisions does. Remember that if you get on the SC, you're there for life. The voters don't get to decide every four years if the judges have been doing a good job or not. Although I think its a good thing for many reasons to not have the judges as an elected position, I do think its a concern if they are overstepping their boundaries, because there is no recourse for me to take.
Although the SC usually takes positions that correspond to my personal views, constitutional or not, our Supreme Court today is in a position to make decisions that negatively impact my life.
People need to stop attempting to shape the constituion to what they want. It came as quite as disappointment to me when I read the entire thing and never saw anything about 'separation of church and state', despite hearing about it so much. Its something I like, but unfortunately something that isn't there.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | the supreme court rules on case law meaning past descisions which is how great britain's ystem works since we have teh same system. however GB does not have a constitution they just use case law. Our own system works off of the same theory of "stare decisis" which means let the descision stand. Thie precedent is how our legal system works, in essence if there is no case law for a certain case they will make one for it. This is how judicial review came about (marbury v. Maison) |
Oh really? Then explain why the supreme court ruled the way it did on the Texas law after reading this.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=478&invol=186
The supreme court does not rule on the precedent of previous cases. Rather it chooses only to hear cases without precedent at that level. The supreme court ruled correctly in 1986 that state sodomy laws are constitutional (based on the 10th amendment), yet it decided to hear this case, despite the fact that legal precedent said otherwise. The supreme court has an inherent duty not to rule against it's supreme legal document, the constitution. If they arbitrarily interpret laws to their own liking, then we have what you (a liberal) wants and what we currently have...a judicial oligarchy.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
the only reason the supreme court needs to get involved is because states are using their majority voting rights to create the so called "tyranny of the majority" and the minority needs a way out of this tyranny so the courts needed to step in against states infringing on civil liberties of people (hence the court is here for this exact reason, to protect the minorities rights)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | what you lack in knowledge you make up for in google. in the United States you are not able to infringe onto the rights of another even if this does limit your ability of freedoms yourself this is why we have a judicial system.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
ok so how does this prove your point? yeah that's right the constitution does not protect bigotry it just says you can practice your religion, while you are still unable to infringe on another's freedoms which is basically what you people try to do. so again, why did you google something that has no weight on your point whatsoever?? |
What, d*****s? Freedom of speech has no bearing on McCain-Feingold? Are you even paying attention? YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PLACE AN AD ANYWHERE IN SUPPORT OF A CANDIDATE FOR WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION! If you don't see that as abridging speech, then you're a moron.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | themy wrote: | | the supreme court rules on case law meaning past descisions which is how great britain's ystem works since we have teh same system. however GB does not have a constitution they just use case law. Our own system works off of the same theory of "stare decisis" which means let the descision stand. Thie precedent is how our legal system works, in essence if there is no case law for a certain case they will make one for it. This is how judicial review came about (marbury v. Maison) |
Oh really? Then explain why the supreme court ruled the way it did on the Texas law after reading this.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=478&invol=186
the supreme court creates case law, the lower courts rule exactly how the supreme court did (or rather they usually rule this way) if my post sounded like the supreme court ruled by using case law my bad i worded it wrong.
The supreme court does not rule on the precedent of previous cases. Rather it chooses only to hear cases without precedent at that level. The supreme court ruled correctly in 1986 that state sodomy laws are constitutional (based on the 10th amendment), yet it decided to hear this case, despite the fact that legal precedent said otherwise. The supreme court has an inherent duty not to rule against it's supreme legal document, the constitution. If they arbitrarily interpret laws to their own liking, then we have what you (a liberal) wants and what we currently have...a judicial oligarchy. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: |
The supreme court does not rule on the precedent of previous cases. Rather it chooses only to hear cases without precedent at that level. |
holy shit nws, you've just lost....bad bad badly.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | the only reason the supreme court needs to get involved is because states are using their majority voting rights to create the so called "tyranny of the majority" and the minority needs a way out of this tyranny so the courts needed to step in against states infringing on civil liberties of people (hence the court is here for this exact reason, to protect the minorities rights) |
Um, no it's not. But I'll avoid getting into that obviously extremely biased position and instead ask you to please quote the part of the constitution that grants the supreme court the power to undermine what you incorrectly refer to as a "tyranny of the majority." (btw, that's not a quote from the constitution, so it's irrelevant, here)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
The supreme court does not rule on the precedent of previous cases. Rather it chooses only to hear cases without precedent at that level. |
holy shit nws, you've just lost....bad bad badly. |
No, because if you knew anything, you would know that the supreme court refuses to hear cases on issues that have been ruled on. In this case it decided to allow it to be reheard and this time went directly against the constitution.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I'm making a very simple request. Quote the constitution. You guys are such tools.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
uh huh
"What, d*****s? Freedom of speech has no bearing on McCain-Feingold? Are you even paying attention? YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PLACE AN AD ANYWHERE IN SUPPORT OF A CANDIDATE FOR WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION! If you don't see that as abridging speech, then you're a moron."
and do you know why they do this? because they have done testing and probably it has been seen that this sways the voters a certain way??? because voters can't look anythign up for themselves just watch ads
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
the constitution is very broad you dimwit, if oyu look you won't be able to find shit in it on anything because we have had to interpret it. how the hell do you quote an interpretation of the constitution straight form the constitution huh? you can't
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | uh huh
"What, d*****s? Freedom of speech has no bearing on McCain-Feingold? Are you even paying attention? YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PLACE AN AD ANYWHERE IN SUPPORT OF A CANDIDATE FOR WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION! If you don't see that as abridging speech, then you're a moron."
and do you know why they do this? because they have done testing and probably it has been seen that this sways the voters a certain way??? because voters can't look anythign up for themselves just watch ads |
ROFL. OMG! You mean speech influences peoples' opinions??? Oh my! Let's stop all this "speech!" You would make a good supreme court justice. I've noticed you still haven't quoted the constitution once to defend your argument.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
ok, all i can say is that nws needs to start taking history again, maybe then he can learn something then come back with a brainwashed attitude towards the governmental system and will stfu for once.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | the constitution is very broad you dimwit, if oyu look you won't be able to find shit in it on anything because we have had to interpret it. how the hell do you quote an interpretation of the constitution straight form the constitution huh? you can't |
So congress passing a law abridging speech is not in direct contrast to the first amendment that states congress shall not pass a law abridging speech? This isn't rocket science, here.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | hitachi wrote: | i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave. |
life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy. |
Like I said, you perversion of **** orientation, why don't you quote the part of the constitution that guarantees sodomy, rather than blabbing your mouth about how much you like it in the butt because your fake p***y just doesn't do it for you. |
all men are created equal. Does that mean women aren't recreated equal? Is it all straight, white, rich men are created equal? Guarantee to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Stop acting like such a victim, this law has very little bearing on your everyday encounters and I get the impression you're just looking to start drama. As allways really, you're trying to rile up a few select few people hoping to get some original response to the same rehashed b******t you peddle on a biweekly basis. And what does it say about our country when we're more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? |
Just as I predicated. bla bla bla, I don't have a real p***y, bla bla bla. Where's the quote from the constitution I was looking for? Oh yeah...there isn't one. Why? Because I'm right. The supreme court does not base its decisions on the constitution. |
........................... I guess you must have missed it give me a second to cite it properly using mla format.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (par. 2).-Declaration of Independance, with toting the constitution as a shield you better know who the fathers or "framers" were. There is also no place in the constitution, bill of rights, nor any other significant american document stating that homosexuality is a crime and will not be tolerated. The constitution in actually never really touches the subject. But the supreme court has obligations outside that of just interpretting the constitution. It's their responsibility to see that justice is enforced, and punishment for "homosexual contact" doesn't even come remotely close to justice. But your view of the world is quite skewed. I mean, you seem so angry, upset, and just plain unbalanced nws. I kind of feel sorry for you, I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. And I can state with reasonable certainity that the way you portray yourself on realpoor doesn't even resemble who you really are. Simply put, you're a simpleton who can't seem to get much of anything right, and unfortunately for you the constitution makes no provisions for people of terminal stupidity.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | ok, all i can say is that nws needs to start taking history again, maybe then he can learn something then come back with a brainwashed attitude towards the governmental system and will stfu for once. |
Impressive argument. Too bad you forgot to quote the constitution like I asked. It's a veeeeerrrry simple request. Come on, now. Go ahead.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| lauren000 wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | hitachi wrote: | i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave. |
life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy. |
Like I said, you perversion of **** orientation, why don't you quote the part of the constitution that guarantees sodomy, rather than blabbing your mouth about how much you like it in the butt because your fake p***y just doesn't do it for you. |
all men are created equal. Does that mean women aren't recreated equal? Is it all straight, white, rich men are created equal? Guarantee to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Stop acting like such a victim, this law has very little bearing on your everyday encounters and I get the impression you're just looking to start drama. As allways really, you're trying to rile up a few select few people hoping to get some original response to the same rehashed b******t you peddle on a biweekly basis. And what does it say about our country when we're more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? |
Just as I predicated. bla bla bla, I don't have a real p***y, bla bla bla. Where's the quote from the constitution I was looking for? Oh yeah...there isn't one. Why? Because I'm right. The supreme court does not base its decisions on the constitution. |
........................... I guess you must have missed it give me a second to cite it properly using mla format.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (par. 2).-Declaration of Independance, with toting the constitution as a shield you better know who the fathers or "framers" were. There is also no place in the constitution, bill of rights, nor any other significant american document stating that homosexuality is a crime and will not be tolerated. The constitution in actually never really touches the subject. But the supreme court has obligations outside that of just interpretting the constitution. It's their responsibility to see that justice is enforced, and punishment for "homosexual contact" doesn't even come remotely close to justice. But your view of the world is quite skewed. I mean, you seem so angry, upset, and just plain unbalanced nws. I kind of feel sorry for you, I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. And I can state with reasonable certainity that the way you portray yourself on realpoor doesn't even resemble who you really are. Simply put, you're a simpleton who can't seem to get much of anything right, and unfortunately for you the constitution makes no provisions for people of terminal stupidity. |
You whole argument falls to pieces when you read the 10th amendment. The supreme court is not granted with the authority to arbitrarily grant "justice" according to your own corrupted interpretation of it. It is bound by the constitution to allow Texas any law that does not violate the very specific restrictions specified in the constitution. I see you're still unable to quote the constitution. Instead you refer to poetry, not law. I remember a while back how Akronn ludicrously quoted an obscure personal letter from jefferson that mentioned the separation of church and state. He took that to mean the continental congress believed religion should essentially be outlawed at every level. The constitution says quite differently, though. Now I'll ask you again, please quote the constitution because all you're saying is "Hey, I WANT to live under the rule of 5 people!"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | ATM Banana wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
The supreme court does not rule on the precedent of previous cases. Rather it chooses only to hear cases without precedent at that level. |
holy shit nws, you've just lost....bad bad badly. |
No, because if you knew anything, you would know that the supreme court refuses to hear cases on issues that have been ruled on. In this case it decided to allow it to be reheard and this time went directly against the constitution. |
So in 10 years if a 'less liberal' court wanted to reverse this decision, they shouldn't, because its already been ruled on, albeit wrongly in your opinion? The supreme court should do what's constitutionally right, not what's right in the eyes of past justices.
| themy wrote: | | the constitution is very broad you dimwit, if oyu look you won't be able to find shit in it on anything because we have had to interpret it. how the hell do you quote an interpretation of the constitution straight form the constitution huh? you can't |
The constitution is broad, but it is specific. Because it is broad, if you wanted to interpret it to make a point, you would have to quote a section of the constitution.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
I didn't feel very motivated to read your b******t so I'll just respond.
Learn to pick your battles. Yes the supreme court oversteps its bounds repeatidly, but the way to convince people of this is to chose a topic everyone can agree on. You're trying to use the constitution to push your agenda and that's where your problem lies. If you weren't such a biggot, people would be much more open to your interpretation of the constitution and your opinions on the supreme court. Instead you show up on realpoor. You start an argument in regards to homosexuality with morality as your central issue. You try to justify your point with a piece of paper that's 200 years old and makes no references to homosexuality what so ever. Again this goes back to your need to antagonize a minority. Just because it's still politically correct to hate on homosexuals does not make it justifiable. And most people who come to an online message board spewing hate really just don't like themselves much. Again I feel sorry for you, regardless of whether your point is semi-valid.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
The declaration of independance is not a poetic document sir. strike 2
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
you are trying to quote a piece of paper that is open to debate on what it exactly means and it in no way states one way or the other it grants states every power cause if you read the 9th ammend (go ahead mr search it on google) you will find somethign called the elastic clause (go ahead google that too) which says the opposite of the 10th ammend. so this is why we need the judicla system to interpret our laws as best they can to keep our civil liberties in check.
P.S. ever heard of segregation?? sep but equal?? yeah we needed the supreme court to do that too because our legislative branch takes so f*****g long to decide anything because of right wing nutjob religious bigots such as yourself.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
hitachi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1508
Location: Maryland
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | hitachi wrote: | i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave. |
life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy. |
Like I said, you perversion of **** orientation, why don't you quote the part of the constitution that guarantees sodomy, rather than blabbing your mouth about how much you like it in the butt because your fake p***y just doesn't do it for you. |
all men are created equal. Does that mean women aren't recreated equal? Is it all straight, white, rich men are created equal? Guarantee to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Stop acting like such a victim, this law has very little bearing on your everyday encounters and I get the impression you're just looking to start drama. As allways really, you're trying to rile up a few select few people hoping to get some original response to the same rehashed b******t you peddle on a biweekly basis. And what does it say about our country when we're more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? |
Just as I predicated. bla bla bla, I don't have a real p***y, bla bla bla. Where's the quote from the constitution I was looking for? Oh yeah...there isn't one. Why? Because I'm right. The supreme court does not base its decisions on the constitution. |
........................... I guess you must have missed it give me a second to cite it properly using mla format.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (par. 2).-Declaration of Independance, with toting the constitution as a shield you better know who the fathers or "framers" were. There is also no place in the constitution, bill of rights, nor any other significant american document stating that homosexuality is a crime and will not be tolerated. The constitution in actually never really touches the subject. But the supreme court has obligations outside that of just interpretting the constitution. It's their responsibility to see that justice is enforced, and punishment for "homosexual contact" doesn't even come remotely close to justice. But your view of the world is quite skewed. I mean, you seem so angry, upset, and just plain unbalanced nws. I kind of feel sorry for you, I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. And I can state with reasonable certainity that the way you portray yourself on realpoor doesn't even resemble who you really are. Simply put, you're a simpleton who can't seem to get much of anything right, and unfortunately for you the constitution makes no provisions for people of terminal stupidity. |
You whole argument falls to pieces when you read the 10th amendment. The supreme court is not granted with the authority to arbitrarily grant "justice" according to your own corrupted interpretation of it. It is bound by the constitution to allow Texas any law that does not violate the very specific restrictions specified in the constitution. I see you're still unable to quote the constitution. Instead you refer to poetry, not law. I remember a while back how Akronn ludicrously quoted an obscure personal letter from jefferson that mention the seperation of church. He took that to mean the contintental congress believed religion should essentially be outlawed at every level. The constitution says quite differently, though. Now I'll ask you again, please quote the constitution because all you're saying is "Hey, I WANT to live under the rule of 5 people!" |
it doesnt matter! you attacked sodomy, which is important to his homosexual lifestyle. i personally have no problem with him liking sodomy, but he cant have anyone attacking the lifestyle he chooses!
i really dont think nws gives two s***s about the sodomy issue ( i could be wrong). i think the point is that the supreme court does not have the right to ignore the constitution like it obviously did, if you cant see that you are a f*****g moron. he has quoted the passages more then once that show that rights now directly written about in the constitution are individual states responsibility to handle. in this case, texas handled it, and was told no sorry we are going to unconstitutionally rule against you, so sorry~
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
andrew935
Total Newbie
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 44
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Can the two sides of the argument simply summarize their views in the next few posts? Its hard to go back and forth between posts posing counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments. Would just like to see what side A believes and what side B believes.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| quotison wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | ATM Banana wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
The supreme court does not rule on the precedent of previous cases. Rather it chooses only to hear cases without precedent at that level. |
holy shit nws, you've just lost....bad bad badly. |
No, because if you knew anything, you would know that the supreme court refuses to hear cases on issues that have been ruled on. In this case it decided to allow it to be reheard and this time went directly against the constitution. |
So in 10 years if a 'less liberal' court wanted to reverse this decision, they shouldn't, because its already been ruled on, albeit wrongly in your opinion? The supreme court should do what's constitutionally right, not what's right in the eyes of past justices.
| themy wrote: | | the constitution is very broad you dimwit, if oyu look you won't be able to find shit in it on anything because we have had to interpret it. how the hell do you quote an interpretation of the constitution straight form the constitution huh? you can't |
The constitution is broad, but it is specific. Because it is broad, if you wanted to interpret it to make a point, you would have to quote a section of the constitution. |
We're not talking about a mere "opinion" on this matter. It's clearly fact. nobody here is capable of providing me with a constitutional quote that guarntees sodomy. They can't provide me with a quote that prohibits Alabama from putting up the 10 commandments. I provided a direct quote that prohibits McCain-Feingold, though. Those arguing against my certainties are uttering crap about justice, yada yada yada, which of course is their own personal view on it (sodomy should be legalized, but the 10 commandments is barred by federal law). The court correctly ruled based on rather obvious premises that sodomy can be made illegal. They heard an identical case 17 years later and decided to reverse that ruling. There is clearly no constitutional basis for reversing it, though. Disagree with me? OK...provide the constitutional evidence. Your "justice" arguments are futile because it basically puts into place a judicial oligarchy. I think this is what liberals want, though.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK
Discussion boards licensed and powered by ZoneX v. 3.0
Development supported by LifeForm Inc.
All Rights Reserved by RealPoor.com ©2005-2008 |
|
