TX schools will now teach that Civil War was all about slavery!!!

SmarterthanYou said:
no. the constitution is the framework that builds the federal government. if you've read it, you see how it describes the makeup, duties, responsibilities, and powers of each branch of government and how they work with the states.
Click to expand...

then the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms?
 
SY #195

Reading and understanding the Constitution isn't enough.
Obvious example:
in American English "shall not be infringed" has specific literal meaning.
And yet our right of arms is ROUTINELY infringed.
- It's illegal to carry a firearm into a federal post office
- it's illegal to carry a firearm into a commercial airport terminal
- or a law court
- or a government school
- or a DMV
- etc.
We're not allowed to carry up-to-date military arms like an Uzi, an M-4, or even an M-16-A1.
Odd, because the Founders that wrote & ratified 2A had access to & or carried the most up to date style of military arm.

Not clear to me what benefit you think you derive from denying SCOTUS' supreme role in interpretation of the law, along with Stare Decisis.
There are rare exceptions.
But by & large, and one cycle that goes through contest & appeal ends up with the final word @SCOTUS. From there no lower court can re-visit it.

Of course congress could then write and pass a parallel, replacement law, and start the process all over. But it's still SCOTUS that gets the last word. Jury nullification might bear on lower courts. That doesn't work in SCOTUS.
 
jm #203

We're subject to it. SY's counterpoint is SCOTUS doesn't get the final word. In exceptional cases he's right.
But I suspect most SCOTUS rulings stand.
 
" Stare Decisis is a joke " TK #205
Click to expand...
Stare Decisis is a legal standard that has been with human kind for millennia.
Countless ancient Latin legal maxims are reflected in modern U.S. legal principle or precedent.

The modern English translation for Stare Decisis is simply: TO STAND BY THINGS DECIDED
" Stare Decisis is a joke " TK #205
Click to expand...
No need to preach jury nullification to me. I've been at the head of that parade for generations.
But Stare Decisis is no joke.

Inconsistency in law is a population dissatisfaction time-bomb.
"Many many times as this link shows." TK
Click to expand...
What matters is not the number of times, but the ratio of times.
What's the SCOTUS self-reversal rate?
I suspect it's far below 1%.
That may not prove SCOTUS' success rate is 99+%. But by that criterion it would be (if the <1% self-reversal rate holds).
 
sear said:
Stare Decisis is a legal standard that has been with human kind for millennia.
Countless ancient Latin legal maxims are reflected in modern U.S. legal principle or precedent.
Click to expand...

Stare decisis was voided in the 2000 election when the SC handed down their ruling but said it can't be used in other cases!!
 
Interesting point.
That's not the only legal eyebrow raised by Bush v. Gore.

But we already know one such incursion, even by SCOTUS doesn't completely eliminate stare decisis, even if it portends to violate it, or holds open the prospect for violating it in the future. Perhaps we can call it a contingent violation.

However, let us please note that stipulation you have so wisely cited here, may be binding on future high courts rhetorically, but not so legally.

Any future SCOTUS is free to rule within bounds of law, no matter what pretense Bush v. Gore promised or implied.

To the contrary, as you so keenly point out, if they ever conflict, it's the Bush v. Gore stipulation that should fall, not an otherwise lawful high court ruling.

But thanks for the thoughtful, learned point.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
You are a pathetic pipsqueak 4' 10" female and are not allowed to call me "little dude". NEVER
Click to expand...

Apparently, you're wrong. I am allowed to call you little dude, since I just did so, little dude, and the only result was a sniveling meltdown from you. So, what are you going to do about it, little dude, aside from the usual wingnut explosion of impotent frustration?
 
#216

2A

George will made the following comment regarding the argument that our 2nd Amendment accords right to government, not to individual citizens:

In order to argue your point of view you have to say 3 things.
1st of all that only the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights, it protects the rights of the government.
2nd you have to say that George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights was wrong when he said by the militia we mean the whole People.
3rd you have to say the Founders were clumsy framers of the Constitution because if they wanted to do what you say they did with the [2nd] Amendment which is say, States can have militias, all they needed to say was, Congress shall have no power to prohibit State militias period. They didn't. They talked about the rights of the People. George Will ABC-TV This Week 02/05/12
 
tsuke said:
i actually do hate this. Once you say "slavery" the mind just turns off and repeats that as the cause of the civil war. It removes all opportunity for critical thinking such as economic issues, foreign policy issues, etc etc.
Click to expand...

All of which was related to...what?

Slavery.
 
Flash said:
Very true, but the issues are interrelated. States' rights is what allowed states to choose to adopt slavery and its expansion in the new states.
Click to expand...

So the specific state right that was in conflict was the right to have slaves.

So how is slavery not the root cause?

Everything always comes back to slavery when it comes to the Civil War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top