Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Doma Unconstitutional

Started by swmr545 , Jul 08 2010 04:19 PM

Prev

Please log in to reply

22 replies to this topic

#16 Al Waysrite

Hall Of Famer

Premium Member
1,856 posts

Posted 13 July 2010 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (swmr545 @ Jul 13 2010, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The amendments that are in place are the basis for judicial review. If an amendment was passed that was aimed at repealing the First Amendment, it can be challeneged in court if 1 person feels it is discriminatory. If a judge deems that the repeal of the First Amendment is indeed unconstitutional and infringes upon the individual's right as a US citizen, then the judge can repeal the new amendment.

I don't know where you are getting your information on constitutional law (I did it in law school and got the second highest grade in my class), but they apparently skipped article III, article IV, sect. 4 and article V.

Back to top

#17 Robert Giacometti

There are no Dumb questions

Premium Member
4,850 posts

Posted 13 July 2010 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE (swmr545 @ Jul 13 2010, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The amendments that are in place are the basis for judicial review. If an amendment was passed that was aimed at repealing the First Amendment, it can be challeneged in court if 1 person feels it is discriminatory. If a judge deems that the repeal of the First Amendment is indeed unconstitutional and infringes upon the individual's right as a US citizen, then the judge can repeal the new amendment.

I could see a maverick activist Judge making a ruling like this, but I'd suspect that a ruling like that would get overturned by a higher court or at least I hope it would.

Back to top

#18 Bill Z

Hopeless Addict

Premium Member
11,795 posts

Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 14 July 2010 - 11:23 AM

QUOTE (Al Waysrite @ Jul 13 2010, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irrelevant to the subject at hand. The law of the land is the constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not law.

Not irrelevant, while it might not be law, it does define to some extent what our Founding Fathers considered "inalienable rights".

I would rather be Backpacking

Back to top

#19 (Cheesesteak)

Visitors

Posted 14 July 2010 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Jul 13 2010, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first 10 ammendments (collectively known as the bill of rights) was in place at the signing of the contitution, so in effect, they were not an afterthought.

Wrong. The United States Constitution was signed prior to consideration of what is now known as the "Bill of Rights."

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Jul 13 2010, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As for inalienable rights, those are clearly identified in the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is completely irrelevant for jurisprudence purposes. If you read about the debates over the Constitution - you'll see very little about the Declaration - and you'll note that the Constitution doesn't borrow from the Declaration.

To anyone interested in the story of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, the debates over the language, the eventual adoption and later ratification - I'd recommend reading "Miracle at Philadelphia."

I took my kids by Independence Hall a few weeks ago when we were visiting family back east - and to see the new home of the Liberty Bell. I still get goosebumps every time I see Independence Hall.

QUOTE (swmr545 @ Jul 13 2010, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The amendments that are in place are the basis for judicial review. If an amendment was passed that was aimed at repealing the First Amendment, it can be challeneged in court if 1 person feels it is discriminatory. If a judge deems that the repeal of the First Amendment is indeed unconstitutional and infringes upon the individual's right as a US citizen, then the judge can repeal the new amendment.

An amendment to the United States Constitution cannot be "unconstitutional." A state constitution, or a provision thereof, can run afoul of the United States Constitution and can be held invalid.

Back to top

#20 Bill Z

Hopeless Addict

Premium Member
11,795 posts

Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 14 July 2010 - 02:39 PM

QUOTE (Cheesesteak @ Jul 14 2010, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. The United States Constitution was signed and ratified prior to consideration of what is now known as the "Bill of Rights."

Yes & No, You are right that weren't ratified until later, but they had been agreed to be added in order to ratify the constitution in the first place, so I am still right in that they were not an afterthought

wiki:

QUOTE

The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. An agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of the Bill of Rights.[3]

I would rather be Backpacking

Back to top

#21 Al Waysrite

Hall Of Famer

Premium Member
1,856 posts

Posted 14 July 2010 - 02:57 PM

Once again I'm reminded of why I have mostly quit posting here. Intelligent comment gets lost amongst what people think (even without checking up on their facts before spouting off).

Robert makes a good point, Cheesesteak and myself add to it. All of the material is factual and correct as points of law. Nonetheless others feel the need to disagree even when their posts reveal they don't really know much of the subject at hand. When proven wrong they resort to obfuscation or insist upon re-telling the same wrong premise over and over again, hoping eventually folks will believe them.

Back to top

#22 (Cheesesteak)

Visitors

Posted 14 July 2010 - 04:00 PM

A bill of rights was thought to be completely unnecessary at the Constitutional Convention. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton wrote, with regard to a bill of rights, "[w]hy declare that things shall not be done which there is no power [in Congress] to do?" Hamilton saw a "bill of rights" as something agreed to between kings and there subjects - like the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta was a limitation on the all-encompassing powers of the king. The Constitution was the grant of limited powers to government - the precise opposite of the Magna Carta. You see - the Constitution was intended to set up a very limited federal government. There was also concern that a federal bill of rights would weaken the various bills of rights contained in state constitutions.

Read a bit about the Constitutional Convention and the outright rejection of a bill of rights. It became an "issue" after it was ratified by several of the states. Read Hamilton's Federalist No. 84.

The debates and history of our Constitution are filled with incredible intellect - something lacking from modern day discourse (note Hamilton himself wrote 51 federalist papers). It is a shame that so many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the events surrounding our "organic" document - and the purpose and effect of it all on how we ended up where we are today . . .

Back to top

#23 (MaxineR)

Visitors

Posted 14 July 2010 - 04:02 PM

QUOTE (Al Waysrite @ Jul 14 2010, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again I'm reminded of why I have mostly quit posting here. Intelligent comment gets lost amongst what people think (even without checking up on their facts before spouting off).

Robert makes a good point, Cheesesteak and myself add to it. All of the material is factual and correct as points of law. Nonetheless others feel the need to disagree even when their posts reveal they don't really know much of the subject at hand. When proven wrong they resort to obfuscation or insist upon re-telling the same wrong premise over and over again, hoping eventually folks will believe them.

You have just described the very method the progressives use to confuse and distract from all intelligent talk, regarding anything the progressive movement wants to attain.

This whole thread is nothing more than a distraction from the very serious and real problems we are now experiencing in our country. Unemployment, the oil spill, illegal aliens and a leadership that does not respond to the needs of the people, are far more important than if two men can get married or have a domestic partnership....in my opinion. But this is a hot button to many, and it works every time it appears in a thread here. Heated debates that end up going nowhere....frustration abounds.

There are those who purposely will continue to try of distract us from the serious issues of our time, to discuss something not vital to our freedoms or our welfare as a nation. Why do I care about this topic? I don't.
Because as we discuss the rights of gays, we are sinking into the worst time in the history of this country. It's like a child trying to discuss with her parents why she can not date at age twelve, while a tornado is coming and about to hit the house!

In the future I doubt that gays will be pondering on their rights to marry or be recognized by the government as having a domestic partnership, when they can't find any place to live they can afford, don't have enough money to buy food or are forced to live with their parents or other relatives.

And, I agree. Why try to discuss anything with someone who repeats and repeats, over and over, what they said before, in order to strengthen their case, when it is based only on emotions and a desire to have something not wanted or needed by most of society?

This is all I wish to add to this senseless topic and waste of space and time.