Illinois county declares itself a SANCTUARY COUNTY for gun owners - HAHAHA

[SmarterthanYou]

depends on the state

yes, but it shouldn't be an issue. it should just happen.

[floridafan]

yes, but it shouldn't be an issue. it should just happen.

No one should ever lose their right to vote- period!

[SmarterthanYou]

No one should ever lose their right to vote- period!

no one should lose any of their rights, period.

[USFREEDOM911]

as it stands right now, does a ex convicted felon have the right to vote?

Depending on where he lives, yes.

[Flash]

Yes. And if the public dislikes the law, we can vote out the congressmen. But when federal judges write laws, the public can do nothing. They serve for life. THINK

The member of Congress can be voted out but the law has already been passed. A federal judge can be impeached and convicted or Congress/states can pass a constitutional amendment to change a constitutional interpretation. Or, Congress can always amend if it involves an interpretation of a law. So, there is equal chance to change the decision whether by Congress or courts.

To prevent governmental abuses is why the framers built checks and balances into the Constitution. You want to remove one of those checks.

[Flash]

the purview of the courts is simply to judge cases based upon the laws and the constitutions plain text. there is no interpretation, because interpretation allows personal viewpoints and ideologies to influence decisions that may run counter to the constitution that WE THE PEOPLE wrote.

WE THE PEOPLE did indeed determine what the constitution meant. there were countless debates, recorded minutes, and commentaries that explained the constitution very clearly before it was ratified.

There has to be interpretation. Unless we take some rights as absolute, how do we determine what restrictions can be put on free speech or religion or whether a law violates those rights? If police must have a warrant to prevent unreasonable searches how do we know when a search is reasonable and does not need a warrant? These specifics were never settled by debates and commentaries and certainly do not cover recent technology such as GPS, cell phones, or electronic surveillance issues.

When was there ever an example of the people interpreting the Constitution? How would we do it--put it up for a vote? That only represents current opinion and not the intent of the framers. The "people" did not even write the document since Anti-Federalists did not even attend the convention because they did not want a stronger central government; so, those attending only represented one side.

[SmarterthanYou]

There has to be interpretation. Unless we take some rights as absolute, how do we determine what restrictions can be put on free speech or religion or whether a law violates those rights? If police must have a warrant to prevent unreasonable searches how do we know when a search is reasonable and does not need a warrant? These specifics were never settled by debates and commentaries and certainly do not cover recent technology such as GPS, cell phones, or electronic surveillance issues.

it's because we have been apathetic in allowing the courts to define reasonable is how we end up with no accountability for deaths of unarmed people by cops......because judges interpret 'reasonable'. The constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people. it's why there are phrases like 'shall make no law' and 'shall not be infringed'. But people have become too afraid of the freedom of others so they demand that others surrender their rights to make them feel safer.

When was there ever an example of the people interpreting the Constitution? How would we do it--put it up for a vote? That only represents current opinion and not the intent of the framers. The "people" did not even write the document since Anti-Federalists did not even attend the convention because they did not want a stronger central government; so, those attending only represented one side.

it's called jury nullification. it was used to prevent the government from convicting a journalist for remarks about Lincoln and how we didn't let people be convicted of the alien and sedition acts in the beginning. its why people were rarely convicted for not returning slaves that had escaped to the north. we interpret the constitution to keep the government operating within the confines of the constitution.

[domer76]

Buh bye, shitstains:

USFREEDOM911
CFM
Smarterthanyou
Yaya
I Love America
Havana Moon
Truth Detector

[countryboy]

Not a constitutional question, idiot.

As if you care, or would even recognize a "constitutional question". Pinche dumb y domer.

[domer76]

As if you care, or would even recognize a "constitutional question". Pinche dumb y domer.

I see you also fail to find that citation.

This forum is full of RW losers.

[Cancel 2018.2]

i see NOTHING about interpreting the constitution in the words you posted above.

What do you think judicial power is?

[Cancel 2018.2]

Judicial power does NOT include power to repeal laws and that's what courts do when they say a law is unconstitutional. Writing laws and repealing laws is a legislative function.
THINK

So what is the the purpose of the court?

And what people decide if a law is unconstitutional?

[SmarterthanYou]

What do you think judicial power is?

the power to hear cases and set rules for evidence, conduct, policies, and procedures. Dismiss cases that have no basis in constitutional limits, etc.

we the people are the owners and rightful arbiters of the constitution. we wrote it, we know what it means.

[Flash]

it's because we have been apathetic in allowing the courts to define reasonable is how we end up with no accountability for deaths of unarmed people by cops......because judges interpret 'reasonable'. The constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people. it's why there are phrases like 'shall make no law' and 'shall not be infringed'. But people have become too afraid of the freedom of others so they demand that others surrender their rights to make them feel safer.

it's called jury nullification. it was used to prevent the government from convicting a journalist for remarks about Lincoln and how we didn't let people be convicted of the alien and sedition acts in the beginning. its why people were rarely convicted for not returning slaves that had escaped to the north. we interpret the constitution to keep the government operating within the confines of the constitution.

Jury nullification cannot strike down laws or actions of an excessive government that do not involve criminal or civil court proceedings. The people sure didn't stop D. C. from banning handguns but the Supreme Court did. Jury nullification did not strike down the ACA requirement that required states to expand Medicaid but the Supreme Court did. Jury nullification did not stop the cops from placing a GPS on a man's car without a warrant, but the courts did.

You and I might commit the same act but decided to find you not guilty using jury nullification but find me guilty for the same act. It is not practical and applies to too few cases and does not stop government from restricting our rights. The courts can strike down a law restricting free speech. But I would have to be arrested and prosecuted and then hope a jury would find me not guilty if we relied on nullification because the law would still be in effect. And then, the jury might not nullify the conviction of a person exercising his free speech if that speech or person was unpopular (Muslims, American Nazis, communists).

[Cancel 2018.2]

the power to hear cases and set rules for evidence, conduct, policies, and procedures. Dismiss cases that have no basis in constitutional limits, etc.

we the people are the owners and rightful arbiters of the constitution. we wrote it, we know what it means.

So how does a constitutional violation get adjudicated? Are you saying every single citizen decides? So you ha e over 300 million decisions that everyone must abide by?