Trump and Damocles argue the President can violate the Constitution.

Jarod said:
I have thought about it, I will give Damo the benefit of the doubt and agree that he was looking at only the preliminary issue of the ban case, was it Constitutional for Congress to give its power to the President, that is a simple yes.

But when I suggested there are more complex issues than that, he was flat out wrong and myopic to suggest that because I believe more complex issues exist... I don't understand the Constitution.

His default to snap to personal insults because he did not understand the more complex issue here was shortsighted and wrong, I do deserve an apology. He defaulted to a Trumpian insult because he did not understand the more complex issue. A case does not get to the S. Ct. without complex issues, they would merely PCA affirm.
Click to expand...

Oh for christ sakes Jarod! Damocles showed an inordinate amount of patience with you. The fact that you're all over the board cramming your "constitutional law authority" down our throats, rather unimpressively I will add, and driving many of us nutz.

You are not an effective arguer. You're all over the fucking map and it's like witnessing a 1-man tennis match on meth.

Go to fucking work already and do real work. Dazzle them in Florida. We're blinded by your "light".
 
Ralph said:
Semantics....the Constitution only grants the federal court the right and duty to 'review' law and compare law to the standard..i.e., the US CONSTITUTION. The courts have no right either inferred or actual to change one word in the constitution, only the people possess that authority. If the courts have a right to arbitrate the words in the Constitution instead of reviewing legislated law from either a state or congress in comparison to that which is actually recorded in the constitution....Show us the article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal court system to opine words into or omit words that are written into the constitution while in the review process.

SCOTUS has been delegated a great responsibility....the responsibility to REVIEW. Its impossible and illogical to review anything that is not pre-existing...you can't review words that are not there. When any federal court OPINES words into a decision that don't exist in either the legislated law under review or words that are pre-existing in the constitution....they are no longer reviewing law...they are legislating law from the bench and usurping the authority of Congress the only body of the supposed checks and balances that has the inherent right from the Constitution to LEGISLATE NEW LAW...i.e., a law that never existed in writing before.

There is no such authority...in fact its illogical to even suggest that a federal court system has such scope and power as to change the contract among the people, the Constitution, void of any kind of representative input.

This reasoning that the federal courts have the authority to arbitrate even the constitution comes from....get ready, NOT THE CONSTITUTION....but an opinion by the judges sitting on the SUPREME COURT. According to the Constitution....any consideration of a law's constitutionality rests solely, not with the federal court....an agent of the federal government itself, but...constitutionality issues should be addressed by the PEOPLE/STATES who drafted and ratified that contract among themselves known as the United States Constitution.

The STATES BILL OF RIGHTS came into existence to bring the unambiguity generated by the feds to comprehension in relation to just where the power in this nation rests...THE STATES/PEOPLE. That which does not exist in the Constitution, that which is silence and not capable of review....belongs to the PEOPLE/STATES not the federal government court system. Article 10 of the States Bill of Rights.

Again...how can anything be subject to review that is not pre-existing? It cannot. For anything to be reviewed it must exist in writing...there is no authority for any court to review....rhetorical campaign statements made orally. If one's oral words could be subject to the courts for review void of ACTION....there could be no 1st amendment rights.

Read the historical truth: http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
Click to expand...

you realize that if my argument with you is only semantics, then by definition your argument is also only semantics.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you realize that if my argument with you is only semantics, then by definition your argument is also only semantics.......
Click to expand...

Hardly....you used semantics to make the claim that the federal courts have the constitutional authority to arbitrate the constitution itself. I unambiguously asked you to present the article, section and clause that grants such authority to the federal government itself. You did not because that authority does not rest within the content or context of the US CONSTITUTION, such power and scope is neither actual or implied by the constitution itself. Why? The constitution is a negative document that places limits on the power and scope of the federalist central government....not the inversion, to be used as a hammer by the feds it was intended to limit to hit the people/states over the head and beat them down.

In fact the opposite is true as documented in the unambiguous text of the 10th amendment to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Where the constitution is silent that silence does not belong to the federal courts to opine and amend the verbatim text of the constitution basically legislating new law into existence where the constitution is silent, that authority belongs to the states/people.....explicitly, through congressional representation.

SCOTUS has self professed the authority of opining new language into into existence, as demonstrated by documented history. The first example is found in the early 19th century....almost 3 decades after the United States came into existence, that example was Marbury v. Madison 1803. History even admits that no such authority existed until the court falsely applied Article 3 of the Constitution were no such language ever existed. Judical arbitration was DECIDED INTO EXISTENCE BY THE COURT ITSELF.


There is something egregiously wrong when a SCOTUS decision directly contradicts and rescinds void of representation one section of the constitution.... resulting in conflict with clear unambiguous text of another section of the constitution.....as if amendment 10 never existed by feigning ambiguity to that clear text. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that grants SCOTUS the authority to fill in the silence of constitutional text by opinionated decision.

The danger of such is documented in warnings by our founders....when the federal court becomes the authority....democracy is lost and replaced with Judicial Oligarchy FIAT....as the court self professes to be the arbitrator of the US RULE OF LAW...when in reality that authority rests only with the people through their representative voice in congress, its called legislation.

Even the standard or calibrator of the rule of law came about by LEGISLATION....the US Constitution. No one other than the people has the authority to change or amend even one word, or to add words that did not pre-exist, its called a ratified amendment.
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on this? ...

"Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution."
 
Jarod said:
The validity of the policy comes into play when you consider the more complex issues. The S.Ct cannot determine if the policy is a good one or a bad one, but they can determine if there is a reasonable basis for it, if it disproportionally affects one religion over another, for example.

I have listened to Napaliano, he WAY over simplifies the issues so he can communicate with his viewers and so he can achieve the result they want. He does a disservice to jurisprudence by dumbing down the law to make his followers think they understand very complex issues.
Click to expand...

would you care to make a bet that the SC ultimately upholds the travel ban? :)

I would be willing to bet my signature line. How about you? :)
 
tsuke said:
would you care to make a bet that the SC ultimately upholds the travel ban? :)

I would be willing to bet my signature line. How about you? :)
Click to expand...

No, I suspect the S.Ct will ultimately not overturn the ban. Getting to the Supreme Court will take up most of the 90 days.
 
Bigdog said:
Any thoughts on this? ...

"Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution."
Click to expand...

Its simple.....its unconstitutional precedence, as it does not exist as a right granted the feds by the People/States, as clearly expressed in clear unambiguous text in the Bill of Rights. Why is it illegal? The federal courts are not the peoples representatives they are political appointees, civil servants who have taken an oath to defend the constitution not change it by judicial fiat that has never seen representation of or by THE PEOPLE.

The constitution was drafted and state ratified as a contractual standard among the states/people, the other party the FED was the subject of limitation in its power and scope and has no voice other than that granted by the people/states.....standards that are used as source of calibration don't change depending upon which political party is in power....if they do there is no longer a constant source of calibration, there is nothing but speculation, conjecture and opinion remaining.

Thus the dog and phony show every time a SCOTUS seat opens.....it goes to the best judge that political money and power can purchase. That was never the constitutional intent of forming the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNTIED STATES.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
SO, now you agree that the President's power is limited by the Constitution and thus it is reviewable and not an easy case?
Click to expand...

You might want to explain what possible Constitutional implication there could conceivably be since not single American's rights are involved, nor is there any infringement alleged upon any other branch of government.

In fact, absent any such specific it is obviously the judiciary that is infringing on another branch of government (again) and is acting Unconstitutionally.

What recourse do the people have when the judiciary assumes an extra-Constitutional role? (again)
 
BAM the experts seem to disagree! Guess the law ain't so simple... guess your ignorance is showing!
 
"..neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary,
the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when
policymaking in that context."

Damo, still waiting for my apology!

Clearly,my understanding of constitutional law is much more in line with these judges than yours!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is impossible to argue alone.....
Click to expand...

Since when is documenting history actual....arguing? Its not, its putting an end to semantics and rhetorical subjectivity.

If you were actually arguing with any validity.....you could have presented the article, section and clause of the constitution that grants any federal court the power and authority to interpret the constitution via adding or taking away constitutional text. You did not because that authority is not found in the constitution. Thus...the end of argument...other than more subjective BS from you....circular arguments. Once I have presented the objective, testable truth....I cease to engage on the subject. Facts end further engagement. You will find that I am not actually political...I simply defend and promote the objective truth regardless of where the subjective BS is generated. TRUTH favors no political motive.


The truth that I defend? The republic and its founding nature....I defend any enemy thereof regardless of its source foreign or domestic. Right now the greatest threat to this republic is the cancer that is social liberalism and its immoral nature of evil.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Since when is documenting history actual....arguing? Its not, its putting an end to semantics and rhetorical subjectivity.

If you were actually arguing with any validity.....you could have presented the article, section and clause of the constitution that grants any federal court the power and authority to interpret the constitution via adding or taking away constitutional text. You did not because that authority is not found in the constitution. Thus...the end of argument...other than more subjective BS from you....circular arguments. Once I have presented the objective, testable truth....I cease to engage on the subject. Facts end further engagement. You will find that I am not actually political...I simply defend and promote the objective truth regardless of where the subjective BS is generated. TRUTH favors no political motive.


The truth that I defend? The republic and its founding nature....I defend any enemy thereof regardless of its source foreign or domestic. Right now the greatest threat to this republic is the cancer that is social liberalism and its immoral nature of evil.
Click to expand...

your claim this is only semantics is only semantics.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top