SCOTUs has another gun case, and it should be interesting

NiftyNiblick said:
You're totally insane, Milquetoast,
but that's not the problem here.

You're also totally stupid.

Interpreting the constitution is their specific job.

I can't be wasting my time with you.
Click to expand...

I see someone has never read the Constitution.

Nowhere is the Court empowered to interpret the Constitution. It is a power USURPED by John Marshall under Marbury v. Madison. A usurpation that Thomas Jefferson deemed "the establishment of judicial tyranny". The court declared itself the arbiter of the constitution. It seized the power.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I see someone has never read the Constitution.

Nowhere is the Court empowered to interpret the Constitution. It is a power USURPED by John Marshall under Marbury v. Madison. A usurpation that Thomas Jefferson deemed "the establishment of judicial tyranny". The court declared itself the arbiter of the constitution. It seized the power.
Click to expand...

All enforcement falls under the authority of the executive branch.
The court has the power to seize nothing on its own.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
All enforcement falls under the authority of the executive branch.
The court has the power to seize nothing on its own.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance precludes you from this conversation.

At the very least, read the Wiki page on Marbury before making a fool of yourself.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
200 years of established precedence says they actually do.

A convention of states could enumerate this authority - either to the court or to congress.
Click to expand...

A convention of states could partition America into more internally compatible nations
where fully half the people don't viscerally hate the other half.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
A convention of states could partition America into more internally compatible nations
where fully half the people don't viscerally hate the other half.
Click to expand...

No, it could not.

Article V is yet another part of the Constitution you have utterly no knowledge of.

You fight to destroy a document you clearly have zero knowledge of. Have you even read Marx? Do you know what it is you promote?

Here, educate yourself. https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf
 
Into the Night said:
They never did have that authority. It doesn't matter how long they've usurped that authority.
Click to expand...

Under both common law and American jurisprudence, the prominence of precedent is observed.

Basically in law, "we've always done it that way" has bearing. I'm a logistician. My entire professional life is deploying lean and 6-Sigma process improvements, generally driven by Kaizen events. I am in short, an agent of change. I generally don't tolerate the entropy of routine. But in law, it is the foundation.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Under both common law and American jurisprudence, the prominence of precedent is observed.
Click to expand...
Not if it's against a constitution.
Uncensored2008 said:
Basically in law, "we've always done it that way" has bearing.
Click to expand...
Not if it's against a constitution.
Uncensored2008 said:
I'm a logistician. My entire professional life is deploying lean and 6-Sigma process improvements, generally driven by Kaizen events. I am in short, an agent of change. I generally don't tolerate the entropy of routine. But in law, it is the foundation.
Click to expand...
Not if it's against a constitution.

The constitution of a republic is the highest law. Precedence does NOT change that constitution. ONLY the owners of that constitution have authority to change it. For the Constitution of the United States, the owners are the States, not any court, and not any federal agency created by that constitution.

Law is not a routine.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
You're totally insane, Milquetoast,
but that's not the problem here.

You're also totally stupid.

Interpreting the constitution is their specific job.

I can't be wasting my time with you.
Click to expand...

Come on, you’ll miss the humor, his idiocy is close to unrivaled, but, on this forum, it is often par for the course
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I doubt Scalia will decide anything.......he's dead.......
Click to expand...

Ah, Scalia is the one who set the precedent, employing his sophomoric Originalism. Thomas used that precedent in Bruen, and every gun case now has to weigh Scalia’s precedent in any decision, Scalia is dead, but his legacy remains, and you thought you were witty
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Under both common law and American jurisprudence, the prominence of precedent is observed.

Basically in law, "we've always done it that way" has bearing. I'm a logistician. My entire professional life is deploying lean and 6-Sigma process improvements, generally driven by Kaizen events. I am in short, an agent of change. I generally don't tolerate the entropy of routine. But in law, it is the foundation.
Click to expand...

the ONLY reason that this precedent of historical usurpation as 'legal' is only there because the American people have been dumbed down to the point that they actually believe that the government is the arbiter of the limits of their own power, which is patently false.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I see someone has never read the Constitution.

Nowhere is the Court empowered to interpret the Constitution. It is a power USURPED by John Marshall under Marbury v. Madison. A usurpation that Thomas Jefferson deemed "the establishment of judicial tyranny". The court declared itself the arbiter of the constitution. It seized the power.
Click to expand...

Always love it when wingers “interpret” the Constitution as if it was a static document, ah, according to the Constitution, women are second class citizens and Black Americans are only three fifths of a person, so I guess according to your thinking that is still Constitutionally true today

NEXT
 
archives said:
Always love it when wingers “interpret” the Constitution as if it was a static document, ah, according to the Constitution, women are second class citizens and Black Americans are only three fifths of a person, so I guess according to your thinking that is still Constitutionally true today

NEXT
Click to expand...

have you ever heard the word 'Amendment'??????

NEXT
 
Into the Night said:
Not if it's against a constitution.
Click to expand...

Except that is not against the Constitution - the Constitution is simply silent on the subject.

Not if it's against a constitution.
Not if it's against a constitution.

The constitution of a republic is the highest law. Precedence does NOT change that constitution. ONLY the owners of that constitution have authority to change it. For the Constitution of the United States, the owners are the States, not any court, and not any federal agency created by that constitution.

Law is not a routine.
Click to expand...


{[FONT=&quot]Precedent refers to a [/FONT]court[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]decision[FONT=&quot] that is considered as [/FONT]authority[FONT=&quot] for deciding subsequent [/FONT]cases[FONT=&quot] involving identical or similar [/FONT]facts[FONT=&quot], or similar [/FONT]legal[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]issues[FONT=&quot]. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of [/FONT]stare decisis[FONT=&quot] and requires courts to apply the [/FONT]law[FONT=&quot] in the same manner to cases with the same facts. Some [/FONT]judges[FONT=&quot] have stated that [/FONT]precedent ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike instead of based on a particular judge’s personal views[FONT=&quot].}


[/FONT]precedent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top