NYC fires teachers for refusing covid vax. Unvaxxed ILLEGAL kids attend the schools

Flash said:
[h=3]Reasoning[/h](Brennan, J.) By a 5–4 vote, the Court concluded that the Texas legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court explained that "education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society" and "provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all." Further, while persuasive arguments support the view that a state may withhold benefits from people whose presence within the country is a result of unlawful conduct, the children of such illegal entrants "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status," and "legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."
While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from an influx of illegal immigrants, there was no evidence to suggest that any immigrants came to the country to avail themselves of a free education. Similarly, while the state has an interest in removing burdens on the state's ability to provide high-quality public education, there was no evidence that the exclusion of undocumented children was likely to improve the overall quality of education in Texas.
Accordingly, the majority affirmed the lower court's ruling.
Click to expand...

That is NOT a LEGAL argument , you moron. This is a court and they are supposed to base their decisions on what the law says not what they think it should say.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
That is NOT a LEGAL argument , you moron. This is a court and they are supposed to base their decisions on what the law says not what they think it should say.
Click to expand...

Lean what courts do. The law prohibited illegal children from attending public schools and it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The Constitution does not make exceptions for equal rights. They did not make their decision on what they thought the law should say but whether the law violated the Constitution.
 
Flash said:
Lean what courts do. The law prohibited illegal children from attending public schools and it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The Constitution does not make exceptions for equal rights. They did not make their decision on what they thought the law should say but whether the law violated the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Where does the constitution say the supreme court decides whether a law is constitutional or not? The tenth amendment says the states have that power.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Where does the constitution say the supreme court decides whether a law is constitutional or not? The tenth amendment says the states have that power.
Click to expand...

Read Marbury v. Madison. The states do not get to decide the meaning of the Constitution. Read Federalist #78 to see what the men who wrote the Constitution thought it meant. Hamilton explains judicial review.
 
Flash said:
Read Marbury v. Madison. The states do not get to decide the meaning of the Constitution. Read Federalist #78 to see what the men who wrote the Constitution thought it meant. Hamilton explains judicial review.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA.. Hear that everybody? I ask this moron where the constitution gives the Supreme Court power to declare a law unconstitutional and he refers me to a COURT RULING!!!!

Yes indeed - the SC simply GRANTED themselves the power to do this even though the constitution says the states have it.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA.. Hear that everybody? I ask this moron where the constitution gives the Supreme Court power to declare a law unconstitutional and he refers me to a COURT RULING!!!!

Yes indeed - the SC simply GRANTED themselves the power to do this even though the constitution says the states have it.
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution give the states the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution? It is not in the 10th Amendment.

How would the states do it? You are substituting political decisions for legal issues. Your distorted interpretation would destroy the checks and balances provided by the Constitution. There would be no way to check the powers of the president and Congress from taking any action they choose.

The power is not limited to the Supreme Court but to all federal courts. I notice you failed to mention the discussion of judicial review in the Federalist Papers which explains that function and its history.

You obviously have fallen for the IntotheNight/SmarterthanYou/ school of constitutional law in Bizzarro Land.
 
Flash said:
Where does the Constitution give the states the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution? It is not in the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

The 10A says any power not delegated to the federal govt nor denied to the states is reserved to the states or the people. Since the constitution does not explicitly say who has power to declare a law unconstitutional, the states have it. THINK
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The 10A says any power not delegated to the federal govt nor denied to the states is reserved to the states or the people. Since the constitution does not explicitly say who has power to declare a law unconstitutional, the states have it. THINK
Click to expand...

If the founders wanted the states to interpret the Constitution they would have provided a process to do so. They did not, so do we allow each state to determine whether something is constitutional for their state? That means something would be constitutional in Michigan but unconstitutional in Ohio. That is lame and you did not think this through. Nowhere does anybody think the states can interpret the Constitution except JPP posters. Remember, the supremacy clause makes the U. S. Constitution and federal law supreme over state laws and constitutions.

Why didn't the states uses that power to check the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison if it was not an accepted opinion?

Obviously, you did not read what the framers said about this issue in the Federalist Papers. Nowhere does anybody
 
Flash said:
If the founders wanted the states to interpret the Constitution they would have provided a process to do so. They did not, so do we allow each state to determine whether something is constitutional for their state? That means something would be constitutional in Michigan but unconstitutional in Ohio. That is lame and you did not think this through. Nowhere does anybody think the states can interpret the Constitution except JPP posters. Remember, the supremacy clause makes the U. S. Constitution and federal law supreme over state laws and constitutions.

Why didn't the states uses that power to check the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison if it was not an accepted opinion?

Obviously, you did not read what the framers said about this issue in the Federalist Papers. Nowhere does anybody
Click to expand...

You are confused. You keep talking about interpreting the constitution while the issue is who has the right to declare a law unconstitutional. They are not the same, you moron.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
You are confused. You keep talking about interpreting the constitution while the issue is who has the right to declare a law unconstitutional. They are not the same, you moron.
Click to expand...

For somebody who always tells others to THINK you completely fail to ever get anything right.

You are erroneously telling us states have the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

Yet:
1. No state has ever done so.
2. No state has such provisions included in state law or constitution.
3. This issue was never discussed in the debate at the constitutional convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

You have to know nobody believes your BS because it is easily proven false and has no evidence to support it. Grow up and get educated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top