Gov. Rick Perry Indicted On Felony Charges
|
Gov. Rick Perry indicted on felony charges
Article III, Marbury v Madison, and about 200 years of legal precedent do a pretty good job of granting the USSC their authority in these matters.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Article III, Marbury v Madison, and about 200 years of legal precedent do a pretty good job of granting the USSC their authority in these matters.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » The constitution doesn't support your point of view, it's a document that organizes our government. You can latch onto one paragraph written for a different purpose hundreds of years ago in the literal interpretation while ignoring the actual meaning of it or the dozens of legal decisions concerning it, but that puts you in the same category as religious extremists. It was written for a singular purpose, only you seem to be confused as tot what that is, as it's clearly and well documented, it has one interpretation, one meaning. The "legal decisions" weren't legal ones to be made, they therefore are irrelevant. Judicial review was established in 1796. While it's not an explicit power granted to the, the supreme court is charged with ruling on all matters for which the US will be a party. The framers of the constitution were alive when judicial review was established. If they had an issue with it, you'd think they would have said something. Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » The constitution doesn't support your point of view, it's a document that organizes our government. You can latch onto one paragraph written for a different purpose hundreds of years ago in the literal interpretation while ignoring the actual meaning of it or the dozens of legal decisions concerning it, but that puts you in the same category as religious extremists. It was written for a singular purpose, only you seem to be confused as tot what that is, as it's clearly and well documented, it has one interpretation, one meaning. The "legal decisions" weren't legal ones to be made, they therefore are irrelevant. Judicial review was established in 1796. While it's not an explicit power granted to the, the supreme court is charged with ruling on all matters for which the US will be a party. The framers of the constitution were alive when judicial review was established. If they had an issue with it, you'd think they would have said something. They did. Jetackuu said: » Altimaomega said: » Siren.Instant said: » Odin.Jassik said: » I don't see the point of the lecture or what it has to do with the topic. You wrote how throughout history natural law has not been absolute. Through my little history lesson, I tried to illustrate that even though courts may rule against you, a head of state may condone your statements and actions, but regardless of all that, natural laws are absolute. Them being violated does not change that. Logical thought is not encouraged in this forum just to let you know. The liberal mind cannot handle it. Ahh its HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE when I do it but when you and everyone else does its "perfectly OKAY" I see how it is. Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » The constitution doesn't support your point of view, it's a document that organizes our government. You can latch onto one paragraph written for a different purpose hundreds of years ago in the literal interpretation while ignoring the actual meaning of it or the dozens of legal decisions concerning it, but that puts you in the same category as religious extremists. It was written for a singular purpose, only you seem to be confused as tot what that is, as it's clearly and well documented, it has one interpretation, one meaning. The "legal decisions" weren't legal ones to be made, they therefore are irrelevant. Judicial review was established in 1796. While it's not an explicit power granted to the, the supreme court is charged with ruling on all matters for which the US will be a party. The framers of the constitution were alive when judicial review was established. If they had an issue with it, you'd think they would have said something. They did. What did they say? Considering the case that formally established judicial review sided with one of the framers, I'm not sure what you're talking about. No, that's not how it works. They couldn't grant themselves a power they didn't inherently have. Marbury set the foremost precedent but it wasn't a power conjured out of thin air. It's really a silly argument to make considering the Constitution was intended to be an incomplete document with the holes filled in by interpretation. Legal (i.e., court's) interpretation as established by the founder's trust in law.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » The constitution doesn't support your point of view, it's a document that organizes our government. You can latch onto one paragraph written for a different purpose hundreds of years ago in the literal interpretation while ignoring the actual meaning of it or the dozens of legal decisions concerning it, but that puts you in the same category as religious extremists. It was written for a singular purpose, only you seem to be confused as tot what that is, as it's clearly and well documented, it has one interpretation, one meaning. The "legal decisions" weren't legal ones to be made, they therefore are irrelevant. Judicial review was established in 1796. While it's not an explicit power granted to the, the supreme court is charged with ruling on all matters for which the US will be a party. The framers of the constitution were alive when judicial review was established. If they had an issue with it, you'd think they would have said something. They did. What did they say? Considering the case that formally established judicial review sided with one of the framers, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Believe it or not all the framers did not get along with each other. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » What did they say? Considering the case that formally established judicial review sided with one of the framers, I'm not sure what you're talking about. 1=/= all, and Jefferson had been very vocal against it, for very good reasons. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » The constitution doesn't support your point of view, it's a document that organizes our government. You can latch onto one paragraph written for a different purpose hundreds of years ago in the literal interpretation while ignoring the actual meaning of it or the dozens of legal decisions concerning it, but that puts you in the same category as religious extremists. It was written for a singular purpose, only you seem to be confused as tot what that is, as it's clearly and well documented, it has one interpretation, one meaning. The "legal decisions" weren't legal ones to be made, they therefore are irrelevant. Judicial review was established in 1796. While it's not an explicit power granted to the, the supreme court is charged with ruling on all matters for which the US will be a party. The framers of the constitution were alive when judicial review was established. If they had an issue with it, you'd think they would have said something. They did. What did they say? Considering the case that formally established judicial review sided with one of the framers, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Believe it or not all the framers did not get along with each other. Rightly so, but as they were pragmatic, they came together to frame a document that established our country. And they universally noted it's greatest asset was it's flexibility. So why cling to one narrow interpretation on one clause and throw the rest out the window? Hypocrite much? It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce.
Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » The constitution doesn't support your point of view, it's a document that organizes our government. You can latch onto one paragraph written for a different purpose hundreds of years ago in the literal interpretation while ignoring the actual meaning of it or the dozens of legal decisions concerning it, but that puts you in the same category as religious extremists. It was written for a singular purpose, only you seem to be confused as tot what that is, as it's clearly and well documented, it has one interpretation, one meaning. The "legal decisions" weren't legal ones to be made, they therefore are irrelevant. Judicial review was established in 1796. While it's not an explicit power granted to the, the supreme court is charged with ruling on all matters for which the US will be a party. The framers of the constitution were alive when judicial review was established. If they had an issue with it, you'd think they would have said something. They did. What did they say? Considering the case that formally established judicial review sided with one of the framers, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Believe it or not all the framers did not get along with each other. Rightly so, but as they were pragmatic, they came together to frame a document that established our country. And they universally noted it's greatest asset was it's flexibility. So why cling to one narrow interpretation on one clause and throw the rest out the window? Hypocrite much? lol a hypocrite calling me a hypocrite because he doesn't know what he is talking about. Now that is awesome. Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Thanks for doing my light work Jet. He was already wrong saying the legal definition and regular definition of infringement were different, I was wondering what other *** he was going topull from his hat.
Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Jetackuu said: » He was already wrong saying the legal definition and regular definition of infringement were different, I was wondering what other *** he was going topull from his hat. They are different, rights can be limited without being infringed. Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Again: one they don't have the authority to make, but they don't need to as it's in the constitution. I might take the anti-gun movement more seriously if they didn't just freak out every time a shooting happened that wouldn't have been prevented by stricter gun control anyway. Restricting assault weapons won't do anything when there are more dangerous guns that fit into the hunting category already, and regulating who gets them won't work since people always find a way. The only other solution is to ban guns completely, which is entirely unconstitutional, completely stupid, and never going to happen. Which leaves... shut up.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Again: one they don't have the authority to make, but they don't need to as it's in the constitution. The 2nd amendment strictly deals with state militia, the supreme court ruled that it applied to individuals as well. Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Again: one they don't have the authority to make, but they don't need to as it's in the constitution. The 2nd amendment strictly deals with state militia, the supreme court ruled that it applied to individuals as well. but I et why you have such a hard time understanding all of this now. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I might take the anti-gun movement more seriously if they didn't just freak out every time a shooting happened that wouldn't have been prevented by stricter gun control anyway. Restricting assault weapons won't do anything when there are more dangerous guns that fit into the hunting category anyway, and regulating who gets them won't work since people always find a way. The only other solution is to ban guns completely, which is entirely unconstitutional, completely stupid, and never going to happen. Which leaves... shut up. There are tons of other options besides yours. You don't have to be anti-gun to recognize that this country has a problem with availability of weapons. Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » I might take the anti-gun movement more seriously if they didn't just freak out every time a shooting happened that wouldn't have been prevented by stricter gun control anyway. Restricting assault weapons won't do anything when there are more dangerous guns that fit into the hunting category anyway, and regulating who gets them won't work since people always find a way. The only other solution is to ban guns completely, which is entirely unconstitutional, completely stupid, and never going to happen. Which leaves... shut up. There are tons of other options besides yours. You don't have to be anti-gun to recognize that this country has a problem with availability of weapons. Opinion! What you mean is that the country has a problem with it's criminals and mentally ill. Odin.Jassik said: » the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. At Philadelphia in 1778, while debating, Hamilton and the big government people said that "there could be no freedom without government. Government protects freedom, government knows when to restrict it and when to expand it. As long as the government is subject to the will of the people, as long as the majority rules, freedom will be safe." Jefferson wasn't there, but Madison was. He argued that this was nonsense and that freedom comes from your humanity. That the right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to worship or not to worship, the right to defend oneself, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to life, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness and the right to be left alone comes from your humanity. So the supreme court wasn't the first to have this "interpretation" you speak of. This is why I was blabbing on about natural laws earlier on. They are what the Bill of Rights was based on, in direct opposition of what Hamilton spoke of. If you read Hamilton's opinion again, and really take it in, then you will realize how he envisioned it, in stark contrast with how Jefferson and Madison did. I will let you make up your own mind about which side the US is currently leaning heavily towards. In my opinion, it's not Jefferson's...
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Again: one they don't have the authority to make, but they don't need to as it's in the constitution. The 2nd amendment strictly deals with state militia, the supreme court ruled that it applied to individuals as well. Do you ever get tired of being wrong. You have yet to be right even once the past 3-4-5 pages? and yet you still continue to be proven completely and totally wrong.. Its kinda sad.. Siren.Instant said: » Odin.Jassik said: » the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. At Philadelphia in 1778, while debating, Hamilton and the big government people said that "there could be no freedom without government. Government protects freedom, government knows when to restrict it and when to expand it. As long as the government is subject to the will of the people, as long as the majority rules, freedom will be safe." Jefferson wasn't there, but Madison was. He argued that this was nonsense and that freedom comes from your humanity. That the right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to worship or not to worship, the right to defend oneself, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to life, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness and the right to be left alone comes from your humanity. This is why I was blabbing on about natural laws earlier on. They are what the Bill of Rights was based on, in direct opposition of what Hamilton spoke of. If you read Hamilton's opinion again, and really take it in, then you will realize how he envisioned it, in stark contrast with how Jefferson and Madison did. I will let you make up your own mind about which side the US is currently leaning heavily towards. In my opinion, it's not Jefferson's... + infinity Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Again: one they don't have the authority to make, but they don't need to as it's in the constitution. In all seriousness:
Fix the prison system, decide if they want to make it about isolation of criminals from society or rehabilitation, or split the two entirely, rewrite victemless crime laws to lower the populations, do something about the severe mental health issues, including having "medicated" psychotics not in a facility where they can be monitored. It's hard to stop psychopaths and crimes of passion (or acts of terrorism), and there will always be those who go undetected, but a lot of things could be patched up. The tools are not the problem, it's the people who use them.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Again: one they don't have the authority to make, but they don't need to as it's in the constitution. I know it is, and there's other ways to strip them of the power they granted themselves As for being dense: you're one to talk pleebs..
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not a narrow interpretation, it is the only interpretation, that they went out of their way to define and reenforce. Funny, because the right of individuals to bear arms is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Again: one they don't have the authority to make, but they don't need to as it's in the constitution. The 2nd amendment strictly deals with state militia, the supreme court ruled that it applied to individuals as well. but I et why you have such a hard time understanding all of this now. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is specifically referring to state militias. The worry at the time was central control. State militias were a states only means of protecting itself from the federal government. The original meaning and the law of the land for the first 100 years of its existence was that the right to keep and bear arms was specific to state commissioned militia. It wasn't illegal to keep and bear, but it wasn't a protected right prior to the supreme court ruling in 1886 that allowed individuals the right to possess arms independent of a state militia. So, if the supreme court doesn't have the power of judicial review, you don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Once again: it's not, and you couldn't be more wrong on so many accounts.
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.