Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The SCOTUS

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 2:52:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Supreme Court of The United States is interestin' to me, and given the big rulings that recently came out and that are expected, I figured I'd mention it a bit.

It's the only court explicitly established by the Constitution.

How many justices comprise it, though, is up to Congress, even though it's pretty much always been 9.

The first case set the tone for most of the Court's history, in my opinon. They try to rule on the smallest issue they reasonably can, and IMHO try to weasel out of the big questions if possible. Frustrating though this may be, especially for the petitioners, it's probably for the best. Contrary to some folks's opinion, the Court tries pretty hard as a general rule not to "legislate from the bench". In the first case, they ruled against the petitioner not on the merits, but on whether he filed his appeal exactly properly. They ruled he didn't, so, case dismissed. The guy wound up losing his farm--the issue was whether he had to pay his mortgage in cash money or gold--the state claimed he had to do it with gold, he had paid in cash, therefore bye-bye farm (though he managed to tie it up in a bunch of various other legal intricacies, so it didn't get settled for many years, and part of its settling forms a basis of class-action rules today). The rule that he violated was with who he filed his "writ of error" with, and it seemed like such a stupid thing to hold against him that one of the Justices asked President Washington to work on getting it changed, and it eventually was.

Another big early case was Chisholm v. Georgia, where prior to the 11th amendment, it was ruled that states could be sued by citizens. Amazing how they took care of THAT right away. It's jurisdictionally important, but not something that we think of too often.

Marbury v. Madison was a case in 1803--the first one where the Court ruled they could overturn a law passed by congress if it violated the constitution. The case itself is neat but kind of complicated. What is important about it from a historical perspective is that it was the first time the Courts invalidated a law from Congress. Of course, many argue that it had that power beforehand, it just never exercised it. In the Federalist papers (78) Hamilton wrote:

"[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

That sentiment, as followed by the courts, is why they can (and sometimes do) rule laws unconstitutional.

There are, of course, dozens of other cases I could cite. But I thought if it was interesting to anybody else, it was worth starting with early stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 2:59:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Almost every member of SCOTUS should be tried and hung for treason. They continually violate the spirit of the constitution and rule against the bill of rights. Take for example their ruling that DUI checkpoints were legal, except that they admitted in the ruling it was a minor violation of the fourth amendment. As if the amendment allows for minor violations! They continually chip away at the bill of rights and attack the philosophy of negative rights that America was founded on.

They often take the next logical step from a previous ruling, when in fact they should only look at the constitution and decide if the ruling keeps in the spirit of that. Like a game of telephone, the next logical extension leads to something that could've never been foreseen by the original ruling.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 6:19:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 2:59:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
Almost every member of SCOTUS should be tried and hung for treason.

...I'm no longer able to tell whether you're joking or not.

They continually violate the spirit of the constitution and rule against the bill of rights. Take for example their ruling that DUI checkpoints were legal, except that they admitted in the ruling it was a minor violation of the fourth amendment. As if the amendment allows for minor violations! They continually chip away at the bill of rights and attack the philosophy of negative rights that America was founded on.

They often take the next logical step from a previous ruling, when in fact they should only look at the constitution and decide if the ruling keeps in the spirit of that. Like a game of telephone, the next logical extension leads to something that could've never been foreseen by the original ruling.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:37:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If there was a coup to overthrow the American government I'd have no problem executing every individual who has failed their oath to the constitution. Including Supreme Court judges, presidents and even down to the police who violate it by participating in DUI checkpoints and any member of the military who has participated in Posse comitatus during any revolution that occurred.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 4:22:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I can never tell if you're trolling Wylted. But it's worth noting that you're objecting (for example) to DUI searches on the grounds that YOU think they're "unreasonable". Who are you to decide they're unreasonable?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 5:41:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 4:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can never tell if you're trolling Wylted. But it's worth noting that you're objecting (for example) to DUI searches on the grounds that YOU think they're "unreasonable". Who are you to decide they're unreasonable?

The Supreme Court said they were unreasonable. They directly said it is a minor infringement on the fourth amendment, but chose to allow it. This is not from me, but Supreme Court justices. Now where I. The constitution does it say that it is okay if you "mildly" violate it?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 5:43:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 5:41:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can never tell if you're trolling Wylted. But it's worth noting that you're objecting (for example) to DUI searches on the grounds that YOU think they're "unreasonable". Who are you to decide they're unreasonable?

The Supreme Court said they were unreasonable. They directly said it is a minor infringement on the fourth amendment, but chose to allow it. This is not from me, but Supreme Court justices. Now where I. The constitution does it say that it is okay if you "mildly" violate it?

Citation please.

Because IIRC, the closest they came was saying: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:29:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 5:43:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:41:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can never tell if you're trolling Wylted. But it's worth noting that you're objecting (for example) to DUI searches on the grounds that YOU think they're "unreasonable". Who are you to decide they're unreasonable?

The Supreme Court said they were unreasonable. They directly said it is a minor infringement on the fourth amendment, but chose to allow it. This is not from me, but Supreme Court justices. Now where I. The constitution does it say that it is okay if you "mildly" violate it?

Citation please.

Because IIRC, the closest they came was saying: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

That's the quote I'm referring to I believe. I'm not in a position to look at my notes now. The statement admits it's an intrusion though, but they still rule it consistent with the fourth amendment.

Do you think the writers of the constitution would've really been pro stopping their carriages to have people with guns smell their breath and inconvenience them?

I think their philosophy of negative rights is certainly being violated here.

Do you also think the forced searches into every home in Newtown was okay also?

Is that really a precedent you want to see in the United States?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:47:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:29:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:43:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:41:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can never tell if you're trolling Wylted. But it's worth noting that you're objecting (for example) to DUI searches on the grounds that YOU think they're "unreasonable". Who are you to decide they're unreasonable?

The Supreme Court said they were unreasonable. They directly said it is a minor infringement on the fourth amendment, but chose to allow it. This is not from me, but Supreme Court justices. Now where I. The constitution does it say that it is okay if you "mildly" violate it?

Citation please.

Because IIRC, the closest they came was saying: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

That's the quote I'm referring to I believe. I'm not in a position to look at my notes now. The statement admits it's an intrusion though, but they still rule it consistent with the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment does not preclude intrusions.

Do you think the writers of the constitution would've really been pro stopping their carriages to have people with guns smell their breath and inconvenience them?

Do you really think that carriages are the same danger as cars in the hands of a drunk?

I think their philosophy of negative rights is certainly being violated here.

Do you also think the forced searches into every home in Newtown was okay also?

Pursuit of a fugitive? I don't recollect them speaking out against it. (Though I confess I'm not entirely certain of the specifics of Newtown. A link would be good, given that, with all due respect, you sometimes (as evidenced above) have a bit of trouble with your remembering of specifics such that it rather significantly affects your point.

Is that really a precedent you want to see in the United States?

I'm not a fan of DUI checkpoints. That wasn't really the point. You stridently argued they were wrong, but your best argument (that they conceded it was a violation) was false, and your next argument is one of subjectivity--you don't want them to interpret it that way. And for that, you advocate that they be hung for treason? I still fail to see why YOUR interpretation of the words should be preferred to the extent that anyone who disagrees is treasonous.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:24:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:47:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:29:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:43:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 5:41:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can never tell if you're trolling Wylted. But it's worth noting that you're objecting (for example) to DUI searches on the grounds that YOU think they're "unreasonable". Who are you to decide they're unreasonable?

The Supreme Court said they were unreasonable. They directly said it is a minor infringement on the fourth amendment, but chose to allow it. This is not from me, but Supreme Court justices. Now where I. The constitution does it say that it is okay if you "mildly" violate it?

Citation please.

Because IIRC, the closest they came was saying: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

That's the quote I'm referring to I believe. I'm not in a position to look at my notes now. The statement admits it's an intrusion though, but they still rule it consistent with the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment does not preclude intrusions.

Do you think the writers of the constitution would've really been pro stopping their carriages to have people with guns smell their breath and inconvenience them?

Do you really think that carriages are the same danger as cars in the hands of a drunk?

I think their philosophy of negative rights is certainly being violated here.

Do you also think the forced searches into every home in Newtown was okay also?

Pursuit of a fugitive? I don't recollect them speaking out against it. (Though I confess I'm not entirely certain of the specifics of Newtown. A link would be good, given that, with all due respect, you sometimes (as evidenced above) have a bit of trouble with your remembering of specifics such that it rather significantly affects your point.

Is that really a precedent you want to see in the United States?

I'm not a fan of DUI checkpoints. That wasn't really the point. You stridently argued they were wrong, but your best argument (that they conceded it was a violation) was false, and your next argument is one of subjectivity--you don't want them to interpret it that way. And for that, you advocate that they be hung for treason? I still fail to see why YOUR interpretation of the words should be preferred to the extent that anyone who disagrees is treasonous.

I'm not sure how you'd not remember Newtown after the Boston bombing. It was all over the television. They went door to door in military tulips garb and assault rifles forcing every single individual to let them search their house, and implemented a mandatory lockdown. You can literally Google footage of them putting a gun on homeowners and forcing them out of their home while they searched, while keeping their guns trained on neighbors looking out of their windows. This is something every American should remember just from news footage.

I think there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations of the constitution, often constitutional law is in direct violation of the constitution, because of the repeated use of the logic of "next logical progression", which like a game of telephone the end result can be considerably different than the original intent.

If we're being loose with the term reasonable than any invasion of privacy can be considered reasonable, which in all honesty would destroy the point of the fourth amendment to start with.

Elected officials, the military, the police, judges all take an oath to the constitution "not constitutional law which is a perversion of the constitution ", I'd say if they violate their oath to the constitution, they are certainly enemies of the state and should be tried for treason. I'd honestly like to see the nation reach such a state of civil unrest that we could literally try these path breakers for treason. Every single individual who participates in DUI check points. Everybody in the military or national gaurd who violates posse comitatus during the period of said unrest and every politician who has made any law which is unconstitutional ever who is still alive.

The penalty for treason is the death penalty, and that's what these people deserve. I can see how the Supreme Court could justify their interpretation, but instead of trying to justify their ruling they should be intellectually honest and make the correct rulings.

I honestly don't think we will come to an agreement in this conversation, perhaps I shouldn't have initiated it. Talking about Newtown could be productive though.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:27:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was so happy seeing the civil unrest in Baltimore and Ferguson and was hoping badly it would spread and inflame portions of the white community and then the nation, so we could return to a state of constitutional law, but my hopes were quickly extinguished.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:24:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
That's the quote I'm referring to I believe. I'm not in a position to look at my notes now. The statement admits it's an intrusion though, but they still rule it consistent with the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment does not preclude intrusions.

Do you think the writers of the constitution would've really been pro stopping their carriages to have people with guns smell their breath and inconvenience them?

Do you really think that carriages are the same danger as cars in the hands of a drunk?

I think their philosophy of negative rights is certainly being violated here.

Do you also think the forced searches into every home in Newtown was okay also?

Pursuit of a fugitive? I don't recollect them speaking out against it. (Though I confess I'm not entirely certain of the specifics of Newtown. A link would be good, given that, with all due respect, you sometimes (as evidenced above) have a bit of trouble with your remembering of specifics such that it rather significantly affects your point.

Is that really a precedent you want to see in the United States?

I'm not a fan of DUI checkpoints. That wasn't really the point. You stridently argued they were wrong, but your best argument (that they conceded it was a violation) was false, and your next argument is one of subjectivity--you don't want them to interpret it that way. And for that, you advocate that they be hung for treason? I still fail to see why YOUR interpretation of the words should be preferred to the extent that anyone who disagrees is treasonous.

I'm not sure how you'd not remember Newtown after the Boston bombing. It was all over the television. They went door to door in military tulips garb and assault rifles forcing every single individual to let them search their house, and implemented a mandatory lockdown. You can literally Google footage of them putting a gun on homeowners and forcing them out of their home while they searched, while keeping their guns trained on neighbors looking out of their windows. This is something every American should remember just from news footage.

Yeah, and that's been pretty much the case when in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect since forever. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I remember the incident. I don't remember the specifics, which are important when trying to actually make a point. You seem unable to articulate and support your point, except that you seem to think the pursuit of a fleeing suspect should stop at property lines, something that I do not think you can support any of the founders supporting.

I think there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations of the constitution, often constitutional law is in direct violation of the constitution, because of the repeated use of the logic of "next logical progression", which like a game of telephone the end result can be considerably different than the original intent.

If we're being loose with the term reasonable than any invasion of privacy can be considered reasonable, which in all honesty would destroy the point of the fourth amendment to start with.

Well, that's unfortunate. So your options are "Take it literally which, given that the term is subjective, means it's worthless" or "Allow precedent and contemporary society to dictate common understandings of these subjective terms", I'll pick option 2, since your option 1 leads to the constitution being no protection at all.

Elected officials, the military, the police, judges all take an oath to the constitution "not constitutional law which is a perversion of the constitution ", I'd say if they violate their oath to the constitution, they are certainly enemies of the state and should be tried for treason. I'd honestly like to see the nation reach such a state of civil unrest that we could literally try these path breakers for treason. Every single individual who participates in DUI check points. Everybody in the military or national gaurd who violates posse comitatus during the period of said unrest and every politician who has made any law which is unconstitutional ever who is still alive.

So, again, you think that your interpretation should control to the point of treason, with no justification other than that it's your opinion? Not particularly compelling.

Also: Posse comitatus isn't in the constitution, you know that right? It's a law, that can be repealed like a law, that also allows exceptions.

You do not dictate what the law is. According to the constitution, there is a supreme court. You don't like the way they do business--I'm sorry that you have such a distaste for the constitution, but them's the breaks.

The penalty for treason is the death penalty, and that's what these people deserve. I can see how the Supreme Court could justify their interpretation, but instead of trying to justify their ruling they should be intellectually honest and make the correct rulings.

They are constitutionally making the correct rulings.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Incidentally, if you actually read the constitution? Pretty plainly lays out treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

I honestly don't think we will come to an agreement in this conversation, perhaps I shouldn't have initiated it. Talking about Newtown could be productive though.

Well, I'd be happy to find the source of the disagreement, however, the axioms on which we differ. I find it hard to believe you really think that YOU are the supreme authority on the constitution, but that seems to be the only argument you've presented. You think you're an authority on what the founders wanted, despite not even knowing that the founders wanted to define treason--in a way not consistent with how you're using it. I'm concerned that your objections may not be grounded in actual study of the issue, but in an emotional response of a personal nature.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 8:11:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:40:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:24:53 PM, Wylted wrote:
That's the quote I'm referring to I believe. I'm not in a position to look at my notes now. The statement admits it's an intrusion though, but they still rule it consistent with the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment does not preclude intrusions.

Do you think the writers of the constitution would've really been pro stopping their carriages to have people with guns smell their breath and inconvenience them?

Do you really think that carriages are the same danger as cars in the hands of a drunk?

I think their philosophy of negative

I'm not sure how you'd not remember Newtown after the Boston bombing. It was all over the television. They went door to door in military tulips garb and assault rifles forcing every single individual to let them search their house, and implemented a mandatory lockdown. You can literally Google footage of them putting a gun on homeowners and forcing them out of their home while they searched, while keeping their guns trained on neighbors looking out of their windows. This is something every American should remember just from news footage.

Yeah, and that's been pretty much the case when in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect since forever. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I remember the incident. I don't remember the specifics, which are important when trying to actually make a point. You seem unable to articulate and support your point, except that you seem to think the pursuit of a fleeing suspect should stop at property lines, something that I do not think you can support any of the founders supporting.


I think there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations of the constitution, often constitutional law is in direct violation of the constitution, because of the repeated use of the logic of "next logical progression", which like a game of telephone the end result can be considerably different than the original intent.

If we're being loose with the term reasonable than any invasion of privacy can be considered reasonable, which in all honesty would destroy the point of the fourth amendment to start with.

Well, that's unfortunate. So your options are "Take it literally which, given that the term is subjective, means it's worthless" or "Allow precedent and contemporary society to dictate common understandings of these subjective terms", I'll pick option 2, since your option 1 leads to the constitution being no protection at all.

Elected officials, the military, the police, judges all take an oath to the constitution "not constitutional law which is a perversion of the constitution ", I'd say if they violate their oath to the constitution, they are certainly enemies of the state and should be tried for treason. I'd honestly like to see the nation reach such a state of civil unrest that we could literally try these path breakers for treason. Every single individual who participates in DUI check points. Everybody in the military or national gaurd who violates posse comitatus during the period of said unrest and every politician who has made any law which is unconstitutional ever who is still alive.

So, again, you think that your interpretation should control to the point of treason, with no justification other than that it's your opinion? Not particularly compelling.

Also: Posse comitatus isn't in the constitution, you know that right? It's a law, that can be repealed like a law, that also allows exceptions.

You do not dictate what the law is. According to the constitution, there is a supreme court. You don't like the way they do business--I'm sorry that you have such a distaste for the constitution, but them's the breaks.

The penalty for treason is the death penalty, and that's what these people deserve. I can see how the Supreme Court could justify their interpretation, but instead of trying to justify their ruling they should be intellectually honest and make the correct rulings.

They are constitutionally making the correct rulings.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Incidentally, if you actually read the constitution? Pretty plainly lays out treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

I honestly don't think we will come to an agreement in this conversation, perhaps I shouldn't have initiated it. Talking about Newtown could be productive though.

Well, I'd be happy to find the source of the disagreement, however, the axioms on which we differ. I find it hard to believe you really think that YOU are the supreme authority on the constitution, but that seems to be the only argument you've presented. You think you're an authority on what the founders wanted, despite not even knowing that the founders wanted to define treason--in a way not consistent with how you're using it. I'm concerned that your objections may not be grounded in actual study of the issue, but in an emotional response of a personal nature.

I'm merely asking that the interpretation of the constitution take into account the spirit in which it was written, and I could constutionally justify treason for violating the constitution for officers politicians and military. An attack on the constitution is an attack on the United States.

fair point on posse comitatus. I'd take any military or national gaurd intervention in the event of a civil uprising as an attack on Americans on American soil, and it would still be treason. this is not just me speaking either. Many experts on constitutional law will tell you that many aspects of constitutional law violate the constitution. The constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to correctly interpret the constitution, but nowhere does it say they have the right to incorrectly interpret it, especially when it's intentionally corruptepted.

As far as pursuit of a fugitive is concerned it's obviously okay to search a specific residence of you have reasonable suspicion as to them being there in that specific residence, but having reasonable suspicion they're in a specific city and searching every home in that city is clearly going too far. The next thing you know they'll search every home in the country because the fact is, if you do that, you will find a fugitive, probably several.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 8:18:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I won't deny letting emotions cloud my judgement a bit. I mean the glee that comes to my face thinking of every member of congress and senate having their heads on pikes for violating their oath, would have an incredible effect on newly elected representatives in congress as they're forced to preside with the bloody heads surrounding them while they do everything in their power to keep in the spirit of the constitution.

The joy it would bring me to have police and military have to consider the ethics of what they do, and not just blindly follow policy. I think that type of America would be a free America.

Perhaps we can turn away from our I justices before we turn into Nazi Germany, if it isn't too late.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:06:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 8:11:00 PM, Wylted wrote:

Yeah, and that's been pretty much the case when in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect since forever. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I remember the incident. I don't remember the specifics, which are important when trying to actually make a point. You seem unable to articulate and support your point, except that you seem to think the pursuit of a fleeing suspect should stop at property lines, something that I do not think you can support any of the founders supporting.


I think there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations of the constitution, often constitutional law is in direct violation of the constitution, because of the repeated use of the logic of "next logical progression", which like a game of telephone the end result can be considerably different than the original intent.

If we're being loose with the term reasonable than any invasion of privacy can be considered reasonable, which in all honesty would destroy the point of the fourth amendment to start with.

Well, that's unfortunate. So your options are "Take it literally which, given that the term is subjective, means it's worthless" or "Allow precedent and contemporary society to dictate common understandings of these subjective terms", I'll pick option 2, since your option 1 leads to the constitution being no protection at all.

Elected officials, the military, the police, judges all take an oath to the constitution "not constitutional law which is a perversion of the constitution ", I'd say if they violate their oath to the constitution, they are certainly enemies of the state and should be tried for treason. I'd honestly like to see the nation reach such a state of civil unrest that we could literally try these path breakers for treason. Every single individual who participates in DUI check points. Everybody in the military or national gaurd who violates posse comitatus during the period of said unrest and every politician who has made any law which is unconstitutional ever who is still alive.

So, again, you think that your interpretation should control to the point of treason, with no justification other than that it's your opinion? Not particularly compelling.

Also: Posse comitatus isn't in the constitution, you know that right? It's a law, that can be repealed like a law, that also allows exceptions.

You do not dictate what the law is. According to the constitution, there is a supreme court. You don't like the way they do business--I'm sorry that you have such a distaste for the constitution, but them's the breaks.

The penalty for treason is the death penalty, and that's what these people deserve. I can see how the Supreme Court could justify their interpretation, but instead of trying to justify their ruling they should be intellectually honest and make the correct rulings.

They are constitutionally making the correct rulings.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Incidentally, if you actually read the constitution? Pretty plainly lays out treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

I honestly don't think we will come to an agreement in this conversation, perhaps I shouldn't have initiated it. Talking about Newtown could be productive though.

Well, I'd be happy to find the source of the disagreement, however, the axioms on which we differ. I find it hard to believe you really think that YOU are the supreme authority on the constitution, but that seems to be the only argument you've presented. You think you're an authority on what the founders wanted, despite not even knowing that the founders wanted to define treason--in a way not consistent with how you're using it. I'm concerned that your objections may not be grounded in actual study of the issue, but in an emotional response of a personal nature.

I'm merely asking that the interpretation of the constitution take into account the spirit in which it was written, and I could constutionally justify treason for violating the constitution for officers politicians and military. An attack on the constitution is an attack on the United States.

fair point on posse comitatus. I'd take any military or national gaurd intervention in the event of a civil uprising as an attack on Americans on American soil, and it would still be treason.

No, by the Constitution, it wouldn't. In fact, the "civil uprising" could be justified quite easily as treasonous, whilst those uprising would be--that's what the Confederates were.

this is not just me speaking either. Many experts on constitutional law will tell you that many aspects of constitutional law violate the constitution. The constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to correctly interpret the constitution, but nowhere does it say they have the right to incorrectly interpret it

You recognize, of course, that this basically means "If I disagree, I can say they're violating the constitution!"

At some point there IS an arbiter. And the Constitution provides that the arbiter is the Supreme Court.

especially when it's intentionally corruptepted.

As far as pursuit of a fugitive is concerned it's obviously okay to search a specific residence of you have reasonable suspicion as to them being there in that specific residence, but having reasonable suspicion they're in a specific city and searching every home in that city is clearly going too far. The next thing you know they'll search every home in the country because the fact is, if you do that, you will find a fugitive, probably several.

It's rather different to say "We chased him into this area and he's in one of these houses and he's already demonstrated that he's willing to commit mass murder".

I don't know enough about whether people consented or objected, and I don't think anyone's brought suit.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Uprisings aren't treasonous when you're doing it to defend the constitution from globalist insurgents who've infiltrated the government and attacked the people through legislation that hurts the general public in several different ways, but particularly the harm caused by so viciously attacking their liberty.

Their would be a trial for a reason. If the insurgents have been shown to attack America (the constitution), by interpreting it against the intended spirit they should be executed. ItMs not that hard to learn the spirit the constitution was written in and in fact the constitution specifically states it should be interpreted according to the spirit it was written in. If it was allowed to be interpreted however the hell a few evil people in black robes feel like than it would destroy the point of having one to start with.

Are you saying that the government whether it be through elected officials or organizations be allowed to violate the spirit of the constitution? Or you just saying only the Supreme Court should be allowed to violate it with activist judges who are knowingly misinterpreting the document?

I don't see why the people should stand back and not punish those that attack them and their liberties. If the opportunity arises, why not execute the insurgents who've overtaken the government? Why not defend freedom and put people on the bench who will make an honest attempt at keeping true to the constitution?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:37:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Help me understand this. Do you think Supreme Court judges should suffer no penalty for intentionally misinterpetating the constitution, and it would have to be an intentional misinterpetation. It's a pretty small and simple document. If these guys were really being honest, they technically with their education should pretty much rule unanimously on every decision.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 8:47:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I strongly dislike the SCOTUS. The rulings change according to who is up there.

The Taney Court (1836"1864)

Taney, however, ruled that members of the African race, "beings of an inferior order," were not and could never become citizens of the United States.

Moreover, he held that the Missouri Compromise, under which Congress prohibited slavery in certain territories that formed part of the Louisiana Purchase, was unconstitutional.

The Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864"1910)

In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court under Chief Justice Morrison Waite held that Congress could not prohibit racial discrimination by private individuals (as opposed to governments) on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Later, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court under Chief Justice Melville Fuller determined that the equal protection clause did not prohibit racial segregation in public facilities, as long as the facilities were equal (giving rise to the infamous term "separate but equal").

Soooo........ the same SCOTUS years later ruled opposite of the above. So since the above rulings were based off of interpretations could they be wrong today as well? We basically put the lives and fates of millions into the hands of 9 people...........that could be wrong
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
PatriotPerson
Posts: 1,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:00:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hooray for gays
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" -JFK
"You all stink like poo poo" - Rich Davis
"That idea may just be crazy enough... TO GET US ALL KILLED!" -Squidward Tentacles
"My heart is always breaking for the ghosts that haunt this room." -Nate Ruess