Durham protestor arrested for her part in statue damage

[satx78247]

zincwarrior,

I have NO problem with the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment that is actually PART of The Constitution as amended.

Your SILLY response IGNORED what I asked you about a federal judge changing some few thousand votes in enough States to give the 2016 election to HRC. - Would you care to respond to that specific question, rather than trying to change the subject??

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

There is no reading that implies ruling be made with no constitutional basis. Please point out the part of Article 3 I'm misreading, or tell my what part of Hamilton's writing I misread. Otherwise, I'm reading your statements as opinion based not on what is written, but on your preference to how things should be without regard to what is actually prescribed in our founding documents.

Younggun,

At the risk of stating the obvious, Alexander Hamilton was NO legal scholar & in point of fact wanted a MORE centralized federal government at the expense of the several States.

yours, tex

 

[Younggun]

zincwarrior,

I have NO problem with the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment that is actually PART of The Constitution as amended.

Your SILLY response IGNORED what I asked you about a federal judge changing some few thousand votes in enough States to give the 2016 election to HRC. - Would you care to respond to that specific question, rather than trying to change the subject??

yours, satx

That was my response. You need to pay more attention to these posts your responding to. That said, I will reply so that Zinc is not put on the spot to defend my position.

"What if a federal judge changed a few thousand votes?"

1. On what basis?

2. Where can 1 judge change a few thousand votes?

3. It would be stuck and nothing would happen until it got to SCOTUS, no cases start at SCOTUS

4. It was a split court at the time and likely would have resulted in nothing.

5. The change of a few thousand votes would not change the election on it's own. Assuming the court made an obviously unconstitutional ruling there is another check in place known as the electoral college.

6. Given that the system of government as laid out by the founders did fail due to SCOTUS becoming dictatorial there still remains the right of the people to abolish a government that becomes destructive as put forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Now, you can't claim that you have no problem with the 14th amendment while at the same time claiming that SCOTUS should not rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by states which the 14th clearly states fall under the purview of SCOTUS. Your statement do not reconcile.

 

[zincwarrior]

zincwarrior,

I have NO problem with the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment that is actually PART of The Constitution as amended.

Your SILLY response IGNORED what I asked you about a federal judge changing some few thousand votes in enough States to give the 2016 election to HRC. - Would you care to respond to that specific question, rather than trying to change the subject??

yours, satx

Wrong poster. You are referring to younggun's post I believe about the 14th.

EDIT. Sorry, Younggun already replied.
And now time for a winerdog interlude.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

At the risk of stating the obvious, Alexander Hamilton was NO legal scholar & in point of fact wanted a MORE centralized federal government at the expense of the several States.

yours, tex

So you are only interested in the views of the founding fathers which fit your world view. The founding fathers had many different ideas of what the perfect system would be and through much debate created a document which combined them in a way which offered the greatest power and protection for the people. It was never described as the perfect union, but a more perfect union. The very existence of a federal government will be at the expense of the states, the founders job was to find the correct balance. There was much debate over the need and risk of a federal court system and when the document was signed it was done so with knowledge that it was a necessary piece of the puzzle. The constitution is considered law and SCOTUS has the authority to rule on law. The 14th Amendment as legally ratified secured the power of the constitution and BoR as legal restrictions to laws that states might pass and the ability of SCOTUS to rule on laws that conflict with our highest laws.

Your opinion any particular founder is irrelevant to the document itself and the words of a man who helped to shape that document carry more weight than your opinion of the man.

Once again, unless you can point out where it's stated otherwise, or a section of the founding document that counters those that I have posted you are giving nothing more than your preference. Understanding that the founding documents are intended to grant power, and only power specifically granted I'm only asking that you show the particular portions you believe I have interpreted incorrectly, then show and support your interpretation of the same.

 

[satx78247]

Wrong poster. You are referring to younggun's post I believe about the 14th.

zincwarrior,

SORRY about that. - You "federal power advocates" are sometimes hard to tell apart, as you & "Younggun" seem to want more federal power rather than a great deal less, as we "old school conservatives" desire.

yours, satx

 

[Younggun]

LOL

 

[AustinN4]

And now time for a winerdog interlude.

No link? How can I hear the song?

 

[zincwarrior]

zincwarrior,

SORRY about that. - You "federal power advocates" are sometimes hard to tell apart, as you & "Younggun" seem to want more federal power rather than a great deal less, as we "old school conservatives" desire.

yours, satx

Derp, you're the one arguing that an entire branch of government is actually not a check. Thats about as pro-dictator as it gets.

 

[diesel1959]

So you are only interested in the views of the founding fathers which fit your world view. The founding fathers had many different ideas of what the perfect system would be and through much debate created a document which combined them in a way which offered the greatest power and protection for the people. It was never described as the perfect union, but a more perfect union. The very existence of a federal government will be at the expense of the states, the founders job was to find the correct balance. There was much debate over the need and risk of a federal court system and when the document was signed it was done so with knowledge that it was a necessary piece of the puzzle. The constitution is considered law and SCOTUS has the authority to rule on law. The 14th Amendment as legally ratified secured the power of the constitution and BoR as legal restrictions to laws that states might pass and the ability of SCOTUS to rule on laws that conflict with our highest laws.

Your opinion any particular founder is irrelevant to the document itself and the words of a man who helped to shape that document carry more weight than your opinion of the man.

Once again, unless you can point out where it's stated otherwise, or a section of the founding document that counters those that I have posted you are giving nothing more than your preference. Understanding that the founding documents are intended to grant power, and only power specifically granted I'm only asking that you show the particular portions you believe I have interpreted incorrectly, then show and support your interpretation of the same.

Yes, but there's a doctrine called "incorporation", and the 14th Amendment in conjunction with various of the first ten Amendments have seen certain particular civil rights--clearly protected at the federal level--incorporated as against the states in various decisions set down by the Courts. Once one of those rights has become "incorporated", then it has been decided that the States have lost just a little bit of their potential control over the people's exercise of that particular civil right--and rightly so.

One of the most important civil rights is the set of rights found in the 2d Amendment; however, it was never incorporated as against the States until the McDonald case. Heller has proven that the 2d was an individual civil right--as against the DC government (which is the federal government). McDonald was the logical next step in an attempt to force that the 2d Amendment be applicable as against State authority. (This is in sharp contrast to most simple readings of the 2d as always having been effective as against the States--it has not, or at least not clearly so. Not until McDonald.) As one might imagine, the several States are apoplectic against what they see as an intrusion into what satx (and others) would view as the State's 10th Amendment province; however, there it is.

The very things that will--in futuro--insure us that the States and local governments MUST respect the individual and local meaning of the 2d Amendment all spring forth from Heller, McDonald, and their progeny.

 

[satx78247]

That was my response. You need to pay more attention to these posts your responding to. That said, I will reply so that Zinc is not put on the spot to defend my position.

"What if a federal judge changed a few thousand votes?"

1. On what basis?

2. Where can 1 judge change a few thousand votes?

3. It would be stuck and nothing would happen until it got to SCOTUS, no cases start at SCOTUS

4. It was a split court at the time and likely would have resulted in nothing.

5. The change of a few thousand votes would not change the election on it's own. Assuming the court made an obviously unconstitutional ruling there is another check in place known as the electoral college.

6. Given that the system of government as laid out by the founders did fail due to SCOTUS becoming dictatorial there still remains the right of the people to abolish a government that becomes destructive as put forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Now, you can't claim that you have no problem with the 14th amendment while at the same time claiming that SCOTUS should not rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by states which the 14th clearly states fall under the purview of SCOTUS. Your statement do not reconcile.

Younggun,

No less than SCOTUS Justice Ginsberg said at the National Press Club in 2016 that any federal judge is free to strike down any law with which he/she believes is contrary to law, unwise, discriminatory or that is simply against the interest of any group of persons.
(Justice Ginsberg evidently believes that judges may do ANYTHING that they choose to decide in any case.)

yours, satx

 

[zincwarrior]

No link? How can I hear the song?

your wish is my command.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

No less than SCOTUS Justice Ginsberg said at the National Press Club in 2016 that any federal judge is free to strike down any law with which he/she believes is contrary to law, unwise, discriminatory or that is simply against the interest of any group of persons.
(Justice Ginsberg evidently believes that judges may do ANYTHING that they choose to decide in any case.)

yours, satx

. It is possible for a judge to rule poorly.That is why we have multiple levels of appeals courts and SCOTUS consists of multiple judges. The founders made every effort to put checks in place for the checks they put in place.

Now, would you like to answer the other 97% of my post, or do you have no answer for it?

 

[Younggun]

Yes, but there's a doctrine called "incorporation", and the 14th Amendment in conjunction with various of the first ten Amendments have seen certain particular civil rights--clearly protected at the federal level--incorporated as against the states in various decisions set down by the Courts. Once one of those rights has become "incorporated", then it has been decided that the States have lost just a little bit of their potential control over the people's exercise of that particular civil right--and rightly so.

One of the most important civil rights is the set of rights found in the 2d Amendment; however, it was never incorporated as against the States until the McDonald case. Heller has proven that the 2d was an individual civil right--as against the DC government (which is the federal government). McDonald was the logical next step in an attempt to force that the 2d Amendment be applicable as against State authority. (This is in sharp contrast to most simple readings of the 2d as always having been effective as against the States--it has not, or at least not clearly so. Not until McDonald.) As one might imagine, the several States are apoplectic against what they see as an intrusion into what satx (and others) would view as the State's 10th Amendment province; however, there it is.

The very things that will--in futuro--insure us that the States and local governments MUST respect the individual and local meaning of the 2d Amendment all spring forth from Heller, McDonald, and their progeny.

I appreciate this post, but must admit I'm a little lost in it through some lack of understanding.

The phrase "against the states" is used several times but I'm not totally clear on the meaning in this context. Generally, I'm reading that the states have lost some power through the ratification of the 14th amendment. Generally the power to restrict the exercise of an enumerated right. I find the to be a theoretical net positive as I prefer to err on the side of individual rights before states rights, with the federal side having no actual rights but powers granted by the people/states. I disagree with how the 10th amendment has been applied, but it's applied differently than has been seen with the courts view on most individual rights and I'm not sure how that subject intertwines with the current discussion on SCOTUS authority to rule something unconstitutional (unlawful).

I guess I could use a slightly dumbed down version in order to get a more basic understanding of your point, then I can come back and read this post more clearly. Otherwise, I'm afraid a comment could miss the mark.=, and probably would.

 

[satx78247]

Derp, you're the one arguing that an entire branch of government is actually not a check. Thats about as pro-dictator as it gets.

zincwarrior,

NO, it is NOT & claiming that makes you simply (pardon me for speaking bluntly) LOOK foolish & CLUELESS

yours, satx.

 

[satx78247]

. It is possible for a judge to rule poorly.That is why we have multiple levels of appeals courts and SCOTUS consists of multiple judges. The founders made every effort to put checks in place for the checks they put in place.

Now, would you like to answer the other 97% of my post, or do you have no answer for it?

Younggun,

You've "blessed us" with so much SILLY BILGE that I cannot decide what "97%" that you want an answer to.
Would you care to clafify your query??

yours, satx

 

[AustinN4]

your wish is my command.

FAKE NEWS! There was no weiner dog singing in the vid.

 

[zincwarrior]

FAKE NEWS! There was no weiner dog singing in the vid.

 

[zincwarrior]

zincwarrior,

NO, it is NOT & claiming that makes you simply (pardon me for speaking bluntly) LOOK foolish & CLUELESS

yours, satx.

What stops the legislature and president doing what they want when they are both in the same party?

 

[diesel1959]

I appreciate this post, but must admit I'm a little lost in it through some lack of understanding.

The phrase "against the states" is used several times but I'm not totally clear on the meaning in this context. Generally, I'm reading that the states have lost some power through the ratification of the 14th amendment. Generally the power to restrict the exercise of an enumerated right. I find the to be a theoretical net positive as I prefer to err on the side of individual rights before states rights, with the federal side having no actual rights but powers granted by the people/states. I disagree with how the 10th amendment has been applied, but it's applied differently than has been seen with the courts view on most individual rights and I'm not sure how that subject intertwines with the current discussion on SCOTUS authority to rule something unconstitutional (unlawful).

I guess I could use a slightly dumbed down version in order to get a more basic understanding of your point, then I can come back and read this post more clearly. Otherwise, I'm afraid a comment could miss the mark.=, and probably would.

What I'm saying is that it wasn't always clear that certain rights enshrined in the BoR were enforceable as against the States--meaning that States didn't have to respect those particular civil rights. Each State had their own constitutions and many of the rights you see in the Federal BoR were already protected at the State level in that State. When, after the Civil War was over and certain rights of the newly freed slaves were not being respected, the Federal Government put forth the 14th Amendment and when it was ratified by the requisite number of States, it became the law of the land.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to make certain civil rights applicable to the States (which is what I mean when I say "effective as against the States") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights .

It was never made clear until McDonald via Heller that the 2d Amendment benefited from the same treatment through the incorporation doctrine. Now it is inarguable.