Running GREEN in Southern Maryland

[Ken King]

Goes to the idea that those that do not read and understand the Constitution have no rights because they don't know and understand their rights.

It must truly be a blessing to “think” that one can be all knowing of the intricacies of the 14th Amendment and the Constitution as a whole above and beyond those many people that were appointed and confirmed to perform judicial oversight by our elected representatives.

Not all is as it seems and simply because you hold a particular belief on a matter does not make it the absolute truth. Hell, I would be willing to bet that if the Supreme Court justices were that far off the mark on what the 14th Amendment did, as you suggest, that the Congress would have corrected the error by specific legislation.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It must truly be a blessing to “think” that one can be all knowing of the intricacies of the 14th Amendment and the Constitution as a whole above and beyond those many people that were appointed and confirmed to perform judicial oversight by our elected representatives.

Not all is as it seems and simply because you hold a particular belief on a matter does not make it the absolute truth. Hell, I would be willing to bet that if the Supreme Court justices were that far off the mark on what the 14th Amendment did, as you suggest, that the Congress would have corrected the error by specific legislation.

It was held a long time ago even before the 14th that the Constitution and any amendments should be interpreted with the spirit and meaning of the writers and not by twisting any remote meaning from it. Leave to a lawyer to twist until it hurts.

Want to know where the problem starts? With an uninformed electorate. It proliferates with lemmings that just accept things because that is the way it is. And the problems multiply with a body made up of over 400 lawyers.

 

[SamSpade]

Is it really likely that one state might PASS a gay marriage law - and the other states refuse to recognize it? So that gay couples are only "married" in certain states? Can anyone see how absurd that is?

 

[Larry Gude]

To present the idea...

(BTW - why do we swear on the Bible, in court? I've refused - because it doesn't mean anything to me. Why do we say "so help me God"?)

...that there is a higher power than man and government and that you, within yourself, are taking the conscious intellectual step of expressing the truth as you know it and would not lie having professed an oath before that higher power.

Think of it as the ultimate pinkie swear.

 

[ylexot]

It must truly be a blessing to “think” that one can be all knowing of the intricacies of the 14th Amendment and the Constitution as a whole above and beyond those many people that were appointed and confirmed to perform judicial oversight by our elected representatives.

Not all is as it seems and simply because you hold a particular belief on a matter does not make it the absolute truth. Hell, I would be willing to bet that if the Supreme Court justices were that far off the mark on what the 14th Amendment did, as you suggest, that the Congress would have corrected the error by specific legislation.

Why does "Eminent Domain" come to mind?

 

[Larry Gude]

Is this...

Why does "Eminent Domain" come to mind?

...multiple choice?

(sorry, I'm bored and avoiding actually doing anything productive for awhile)

 

[Larry Gude]

So much for equal protection...

the 14th;

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

Looks like somebody is still low man on the...totem pole.

Constitution; You gay people, you are now 'Indians'.

Gay 'Indians': How?

Consitution; That's what the other Indians said!



God, if only I could paid to amuse myself...

 

[Ken King]

Why does "Eminent Domain" come to mind?

Exactly, and hasn't the Congress been moving to correct the flawed decision of the Supreme Court on this matter?

 

[ylexot]

Exactly, and hasn't the Congress been moving to correct the flawed decision of the Supreme Court on this matter?

I haven't heard/seen anything from Congress :shrug: However, I have seen lots of reports about abuses of the new ruling.

 

[Ken King]

I haven't heard/seen anything from Congress :shrug: However, I have seen lots of reports about abuses of the new ruling.

Currently within the Senate Judicary Committee is HR 4128 dealing explicitly with abuses and the poor ruling of the court that was already passed by the House. There is also SB 1313 dealing with the same and a handful of other bills awaiting action. It seems that HR 4128 has gone the farthest and will probably be one acted upon if and when it comes out of committee.

Other than Kelo v New London I haven't seen much, though that was enough.

 

[ylexot]

Currently within the Senate Judicary Committee is HR 4128 dealing explicitly with abuses and the poor ruling of the court that was already passed by the House. There is also SB 1313 dealing with the same and a handful of other bills awaiting action. It seems that HR 4128 has gone the farthest and will probably be one acted upon if and when it comes out of committee.

Wouldn't resolution require a Constitutional Amendment since it is the (piss-poor) interpretation of the Constitution that is the problem?

Other than Kelo v New London I haven't seen much, though that was enough.

There are enough cases to warrant it's own graphics/music/etc. on Hannity and Colmes :shrug:

 

[Ken King]

Wouldn't resolution require a Constitutional Amendment since it is the (piss-poor) interpretation of the Constitution that is the problem?

There are enough cases to warrant it's own graphics/music/etc. on Hannity and Colmes :shrug:

No, it would not require an amendment as the 5th Amendment clearly states that there must be due process before taking one's property. All that needs done is clarifying for what purposes and when property can be taken within the law. The House feels that economic development like the Kelo case is not an appropriate reason.

Well since I don't watch Hannity and Colmes I haven't really seen much about it, but doing a search of the matter you see a case here and there but nothing as prevelent as you indicate.

 

[ylexot]

No, it would not require an amendment as the 5th Amendment clearly states that there must be due process before taking one's property. All that needs done is clarifying for what purposes and when property can be taken within the law. The House feels that economic development like the Kelo case is not an appropriate reason.

Due process has always been in the law. The SC ruling was an interpretation of the Constitution which opened the door so that the government could sieze property so that the government can get more tax revenue. I don't see how a mere law can overwrite an interpretation of the Constitution.

Well since I don't watch Hannity and Colmes I haven't really seen much about it, but doing a search of the matter you see a case here and there but nothing as prevelent as you indicate.

They have ten storys on their web site under the "It Could Happen to You" header: http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/

 

[Ken King]

I don't see how a mere law can overwrite an interpretation of the Constitution.

So the laws relating to ownership of firearms and types of firearms don't overwrite the interpretation of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment?

Article III, 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.

 

[ylexot]

So the laws relating to ownership of firearms and types of firearms don't overwrite the interpretation of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment?

Yes, they do. :shrug:

 

[2ndAmendment]

So the laws relating to ownership of firearms and types of firearms don't overwrite the interpretation of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment?

They don't really but are treated as though they do only because the bunch of legal beagles in the Congress don't care what the Constitution and it's original intent mean and the lemmings that don't read and understand go along with bad case law just because it happened. Bad legal decisions don't make it right. Read Marbury v. Madison (1803), one of the earliest Supreme Court decisions. It states that law that is not based in powers granted by the Constitution or that override rights or powers given in the Constitution is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Of course the present day law makers, lawyers, and judges don't like that ruling limiting their powers, so they choose to ignore it.

 

[Ken King]

They don't really but are treated as though they do only because the bunch of legal beagles in the Congress don't care what the Constitution and it's original intent mean and the lemmings that don't read and understand go along with bad case law just because it happened. Bad legal decisions don't make it right. Read Marbury v. Madison (1803), one of the earliest Supreme Court decisions. It states that law that is not based in powers granted by the Constitution or that override rights or powers given in the Constitution is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Of course the present day law makers, lawyers, and judges don't like that ruling limiting their powers, so they choose to ignore it.

They don't? Where in the Constitution does it say that ex-felons or those addicted to alcohol and/or drugs are barred from owning firearms or that they no longer enjoy all the freedoms of our society? It certainly says it in the laws but not in the Constitution.

Also, while we are at it, where does it say in the Constitution that a man cannot marry another man or a woman cannot marry a woman? It doesn't, so to block or prevent the effort at the Federal level would be unconstitutional, right, or is it okay to usurp the Constitution, but only when it meets your desires?

 

[2ndAmendment]

They don't? Where in the Constitution does it say that ex-felons or those addicted to alcohol and/or drugs are barred from owning firearms or that they no longer enjoy all the freedoms of our society? It certainly says it in the laws but not in the Constitution.

Also, while we are at it, where does it say in the Constitution that a man cannot marry another man or a woman cannot marry a woman? It doesn't, so to block or prevent the effort at the Federal level would be unconstitutional, right, or is it okay to usurp the Constitution, but only when it meets your desires?

It is all or nothing with you and quit putting words in my posts that are not there. No where do I want to usurp the Constitution.

At the time the Constitution was written, punishment of felons was swift and severe. Rape -> hung, murder -> hung and so on. A felon not alive is not a problem.

The Federal government has no business regulating marriage and I don't believe I have ever said they should. I also do not believe the the states should license marriage, but is an entirely different issue.

You might want to read what Jefferson said about the courts. The judiciary was already overstepping Constitutional bounds in his day. http://forums.somd.com/showpost.php?p=1496076&postcount=106 He thought the general population was oblivious of the erosion of rights the courts were doing going against the intent of the Constitution. But as he observed, there is little recourse against judges once appointed.

 

[Ken King]

It is all or nothing with you and quit putting words in my posts that are not there. No where do I want to usurp the Constitution.

I didn't put words in your post, I put words in my post. I do have one little question for you, do you think that gays/lesbians should enjoy the privileges of life in the United States of America just as heterosexuals do?

At the time the Constitution was written,

slavery was legal, negroes weren't considered persons and women had no say in much of anything.

Just a thought but you might actually want to try moving into the present where it is a totally different world then what it was in the late 1700s. History should guide us not control us.

But as he observed, there is little recourse against judges once appointed.

Psssst, there is complete recourse, namely impeachment and it has been used more than once.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I didn't put words in your post, I put words in my post. I do have one little question for you, do you think that gays/lesbians should enjoy the privileges of life in the United States of America just as heterosexuals do?

They already do.

slavery was legal, negroes weren't considered persons and women had no say in much of anything.

Not true. You should know that. Slaves where considered 1/5th of a person.

Just a thought but you might actually want to try moving into the present where it is a totally different world then what it was in the late 1700s. History should guide us not control us.

I will bite my tongue (fingers) since you are a customer.

Psssst, there is complete recourse, namely impeachment and it has been used more than once.

That is why I posted "little recourse" or did you miss that?