First he says this:
Then he says this:
These two things contradict each other.
Then he says this:
These two things contradict each other.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An idea for bipartisan tax reform
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Really? So you agree with EVERY single court ruling?
Of course not. But whether I agree with the ruling doesn't change the courts' power to make that ruling. That's what you don't seem to understand because you're not from here.
I told you. I reject your premise. You don’t decide under what parameters I argue a position.
I'm arguing within your parameters.
I've asked you, other than the simplistic and emotional morality argument, what other arguments there are for your fiscal policy. You can't come up with one. So your position isn't informed by evidence or statistics, it's informed by your heightened emotional response.
My guess is you are afraid to argue on moral grounds because you cant
I'm not going to argue morals with someone who supports and voted for a guy who cheated on all three of his wives, illegally paid off porn stars, and walked in on teenage girls undressing.
You are wrong. Apparently you don’t know that you are wrong.
I'm right and you're the foreigner not familiar with our government.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs to provide for the common defense and general welfare; it gives the Executive Branch the authority to implement the laws passed by Congress; and it gives the Judicial Branch the power to determine the constitutionality of both.
You have finally conceded It took awhile but I knew I would get you there in the end
What did we come to? You admitting that your opinion on the originalism of the Constitution is an opinion? That's what I've been saying this whole time, goober.
Seem like you are the one getting emotional now
Once you resorted to the “fuck you”, you conceded
Look I apologize. I set you up. I knew you couldn’t find those words. It wasn’t fair. I’m sorry.
I accept your concession.
You're someone who absolutely does not understand the Constitution because you're not from here.
You are the one demanding that I accommodate your false premise
It's your premise, asshole.
I'm only working within the boundaries of what you give me.
You say on the one hand that courts have no authority, but then you come right around and say they do.
You're just trolling and spamming, aren't you?
I am not interpreting anything. The words are spelled out clearly
Which is your opinion. Which we've both come to the same conclusion; it's your opinion that the Constitution is to be interpreted literally.
Typically, those who lean on literal interpretations lack all critical thinking skills; or they're poseurs.
I am not asking you to accommodate anything.
No, you're demanding I accommodate your literal originialist interpretation as the standard when it's not. When even the courts have said it's not.
Then you whine about the courts. That's all you've done.
I have already accepted your concession.
What a crybaby.
You have gotten very desperate. I have already accepted your concession
You tell yourself that to give yourself comfort after I utterly destroyed you here.
I know that is what is done. As I said the court usurped a power it wasn’t given in the Constitution
No, it's your opinion that the Constitution didn't give the Judicial Branch that power.
Your opinion is not the standard.
Get over yourself.
Of course you are free to quote me the clause in the Constitution that specifically states that the Supreme Court has the authority to rule what is constitutional and what isn’t.
Article III, Section II: 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.
I am not asking you to agree.
That is what you literally asked; if I agree with the Heller decision, and I said I didn't.
But whether or not I agree with their decision doesn't change the fact that they have the power to make that decision.
That's what you disagree with. So you should actually be opposed to the Heller decision, since it was set forth in judicial review - which is the thing you opposed in Marbury v. Madison.
You're out of your depth here. Stop. You're humiliating yourself.
I never said my opinion IS the standard. I am saying it is my opinion nothing more and nothing less
You have insisted multiple times in this thread, that your originialist interpretation of the Constitution is the standard. That's what you've been arguing. You've been demanding I accommodate that false standard, and I've denied you that accommodation. So now you're shifting tactics because this debate isn't going the way you thought. That's because you're not prepared enough for it. Because you're lazy as fuck.
original text of the US Constitution backs me up.
So you say you're not setting a standard, and then you literally set the standard in the very next sentence.
What a clown.
LOL! You are dumb private pile.
You're a fucking liar.
You lied about wait times for cancer specialists in Canada.
When confronted with facts, you retreat to this bullshit because you're weak.
Why not just admit you were wrong? Simple; your ego cannot handle that bruising because you're a snowflake.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Of course not. But whether I agree with the ruling doesn't change the courts' power to make that ruling. That's what you don't seem to understand because you're not from here.
Clearly you don't understand my words, or you are being purposefully obtuse.
Nothing in the original text of the US Constitution as originally written gave the Supreme Court the sole power to "interpret" the US Constitution. Not only is not written into the Constitution, it defies logic to think that the founders would have bestowed such power on one branch.
That the Supreme Court has taken on that power through Marbury v Madison is not in dispute. I fully acknowledge that. The fact that most Americans have willingly succumbed to that usurpation of power is not in dispute either.
The point I am making and the point you fail to grasp either willingly or through your own ignorance is that the power was not in the original text of the US Constitution. I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting Article III of the US Constitution for your review. You will see that I am correct in that there are no words explicit or implicit that gives the Supreme Court the power to be the final arbiter of what is and what isn't Constitutional
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
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.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
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.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Then why do so many come to the US for treatment?
"so many" = how many, really?
Canada has about 37 million people. Of that 37 million, how many come to the US for treatment vs. how many US citizens go to Canada for treatment, like Libertarian poseur Rand Paul???
Shut up FAG!
There's that Republican Christianity coming through.
No I pay pay taxes so that infrastructure can function, not a welfare state where leeches like you do not work, and receive the same benefits.
Infrastructure is a part of society, dingus.
Clearly you don't understand my words, or you are being purposefully obtus
Leaning on literal interpretation of language is exactly what being obtuse is.
Nothing in the original text of the US Constitution as originally written gave the Supreme Court the sole power to "interpret" the US Constitution.
According to the unanimous Marbury v. Madison opinion, Article III, Section II delineates that power.
That the Supreme Court has taken on that power through Marbury v Madison is not in dispute. I fully acknowledge that. The fact that most Americans have willingly succumbed to that usurpation of power is not in dispute either.
If the courts do not have the power of judicial review, then what is their function under the law?