Cummings’ District, Which Trump Called ‘Disgusting,’ Has Huge Jewish Population

[rjhenn]

He should've read it, or rejected it due to it being too long.


They should've read it, or voted against it due to it being too long.


WRONG. SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy. They are not above the Constitution. Read Article III of the US Constitution, which specifically places SCOTUS BELOW it.


I don't claim perfect knowledge, but I do have quite a bit of knowledge regarding the document. YOU are the one who seems clueless about it...


I didn't watch that speech of his, so idk the context surrounding those words. Without seeing it, my guess is that he was likely saying that he could do "whatever he wants" regarding some specific issue, rather than regarding the Presidency itself.


Obviously so.

Article III doesn't say what you want it to say. It says that the Supreme Court has "The judicial Power of the United States". That means that they are the ones who have to interpret the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[gfm7175]

Article III doesn't say what you want it to say.

What I want it to say is irrelevant. I'm simply telling you what it says.

It says that the Supreme Court has "The judicial Power of the United States". That means that they are the ones who have to interpret the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Read the rest of Article III beyond the first sentence, especially the beginning of Section II. Section II says that the judicial power extends to all cases arising UNDER this Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution is putting oneself ABOVE the Constitution. SCOTUS does not have that power, per Article III Section II.

[rjhenn]

What I want it to say is irrelevant. I'm simply telling you what it says.


Read the rest of Article III beyond the first sentence, especially the beginning of Section II. Section II says that the judicial power extends to all cases arising UNDER this Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution is putting oneself ABOVE the Constitution. SCOTUS does not have that power, per Article III Section II.

The usual deliberate misinterpretation. It doesn't say that the Supreme Court is above or beneath the Constitution. All cases arising under the Constitution are subject to the judicial power of the Supreme Court. That requires the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. No one else has the authority to do that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[gfm7175]

The usual deliberate misinterpretation.

The usual blathering about nothing...

It doesn't say that the Supreme Court is above or beneath the Constitution.

It says that SCOTUS is beneath the US Constitution. See Article III Section II. I can't force you to read it; I can only tell you where the language is... See Article III Section II.

All cases arising under the Constitution are subject to the judicial power of the Supreme Court.

Yup.

That requires the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

Not at all.

No one else has the authority to do that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The States, and the States alone, have the authority to interpret the US Constitution. It is THEIR document, after all.

[rjhenn]

The usual blathering about nothing...


It says that SCOTUS is beneath the US Constitution. See Article III Section II. I can't force you to read it; I can only tell you where the language is... See Article III Section II.


Yup.


Not at all.


The States, and the States alone, have the authority to interpret the US Constitution. It is THEIR document, after all.

You can't support your interpretation with anything that's actually in the Constitution. It says that all cases that arise under the Constitution are subject to the judicial power, meaning the Supreme Court. There's nothing there that gives anyone else the power to interpret the Constitution. The judicial power necessarily includes the power to interpret the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[gfm7175]

You can't support your interpretation with anything that's actually in the Constitution.

??? I just did.

It says that all cases that arise under the Constitution are subject to the judicial power, meaning the Supreme Court.

It says that "the judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... ... ..." SCOTUS is limited to the confines of the Constitution. SCOTUS is not above it. SCOTUS does not have the power to interpret it. SCOTUS is not an oligarchy.

There's nothing there that gives anyone else the power to interpret the Constitution.

Exactly. It doesn't give SCOTUS that power, nor Congress, nor the President, nor some elite group of people. That power belongs to the creators of the document, which would be the States.

The judicial power necessarily includes the power to interpret the Constitution.

Not necessary, and it doesn't.

[rjhenn]

??? I just did.


It says that "the judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... ... ..." SCOTUS is limited to the confines of the Constitution. SCOTUS is not above it. SCOTUS does not have the power to interpret it. SCOTUS is not an oligarchy.


Exactly. It doesn't give SCOTUS that power, nor Congress, nor the President, nor some elite group of people. That power belongs to the creators of the document, which would be the States.


Not necessary, and it doesn't.

You are deep in denial. Refusing to understand plain English. And reading into it things that aren't there.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[gfm7175]

You are deep in denial. Refusing to understand plain English. And reading into it things that aren't there.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing all that...

[rjhenn]

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing all that...

Even though I know it's wasted effort, I'll try to explain. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court. Article III, Section II says that the cases are under the Constitution. The Constitution gives the judicial power to the Supreme Court. That requires that it interpret the Constitution. There's no other way to execute the judicial power.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[gfm7175]

Even though I know it's wasted effort, I'll try to explain.

Same.

The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court.

Correct. That's the whole point of Article III, along with explaining the scope of SCOTUS and other inferior federal courts.

Article III, Section II says that the cases are under the Constitution.

Not quite. It says that the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.

If the cases do not arise under the Constitution, then the judicial power does not extend to those cases.

The Constitution gives the judicial power to the Supreme Court.

Yes, and inferior courts too.

That requires that it interpret the Constitution.

No, it doesn't.

There's no other way to execute the judicial power.

Yes, there is. By upholding the US Constitution.

The States alone have the power of interpretation. The document is of THEIR creation, after all... You're instead trying to argue that the creator is beneath the created... that the Constitution is beneath SCOTUS... that the States are beneath both SCOTUS and the US Constitution... You are making SCOTUS into an Oligarchy.

[rjhenn]

Same.


Correct. That's the whole point of Article III, along with explaining the scope of SCOTUS and other inferior federal courts.


Not quite. It says that the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.

If the cases do not arise under the Constitution, then the judicial power does not extend to those cases.

All cases arise under the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Yes, and inferior courts too.

But the Supreme Court is at the top of that food chain.

No, it doesn't.

It's impossible to decide a case involving the Constitution without interpreting the Constitution.

Yes, there is. By upholding the US Constitution.

Which requires interpreting the Constitution.

The States alone have the power of interpretation. The document is of THEIR creation, after all... You're instead trying to argue that the creator is beneath the created... that the Constitution is beneath SCOTUS... that the States are beneath both SCOTUS and the US Constitution... You are making SCOTUS into an Oligarchy.

You are just frothing at the mouth. The states do not have the judicial power, therefore do not have any way to interpret the Constitution. And the states did not create the Constitution. They are bound by it, just as we all are. Logically, SCOTUS is given the power to interpret by the Constitution.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

You're constructing a racist model and then projecting that model onto Trump.

Racism Fallacy.

Strawman fallacy.

[gfm7175]

All cases arise under the Constitution.

So nothing is unconstitutional?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

But the Supreme Court is at the top of that food chain.
It's impossible to decide a case involving the Constitution without interpreting the Constitution.

Which requires interpreting the Constitution.

You are just frothing at the mouth. The states do not have the judicial power, therefore do not have any way to interpret the Constitution. And the states did not create the Constitution. They are bound by it, just as we all are. Logically, SCOTUS is given the power to interpret by the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Then how did the document come into existence, dummy??

[gfm7175]

Strawman fallacy.

What strawman?