ZOMG the Founding Fathers Passed Obamacare in 1798

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Looks like the constitution didn't and couldn't protect jack shit. So much for "checks and balances" eh?

When I first learned of the wheat case, I figured that their self granted magical powers of wordsmithing were limitless. They've been speeding things up a bit lately. It's a matter of a few years before it crashes. The question is, what will rise from the ashes?
Click to expand...
The opposite. The checks and balances did work. You just object to the outcomes in self rule.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
you argue like a lawyer. is there some tainted lawyer blood in your veins?
Click to expand...
I did once read these things professionally. There's a science to dissecting them.

the quotes i posted are part of the OPINION of the case not excerpts from the arguments.

that the court has adop-ted the position that federal power is absolute and they can regulate how many socks i keep in my drawer is irrelevant to the constitution, logic and in fact the opinion in THIS case, not the mad insane retarded over-reach of raich which is BAD LAW.

you keep throwing around Raich as if it is some magic talisman that changes the meaning of the words and meaning of the Wickard decision, which also does NOT invalidate schecter.
Click to expand...
You can't pick and choose the cases that are good and bad law. Raich is the magic talisman because it states my view of Wickard, which means the court has adopted my view, which means that view is the law, like it or not. You can talk all you like about what you think the case should mean so long as you accept the reality of what it does mean today in the "settled law."

you are (as the court is currently doing) using the Constitution to undermine the Constitution, and rewriting laws from the bench.

thats not how our system is supposed to work, but thats what legalism does. it's why nobody likes lawyers. they lie deceive and undermine everything the country stands for with their mealy mouthed parsing and weaseling like "No Controlling Legal Authority" and "It depends what the meaning of "IS" is..."

if you want to accept this kind of government domination of your life, then feel free to embrace it, im not having it.

Good day sir.















I Said Good Day!!

:-P
Click to expand...
All that's been happening since the foundation of this nation. Rigidity isn't such a good thing in the face of evolution; the supreme court has stretched the commerce clause to reflect our modern reality rather than maintaining some static vision of colonial times.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
They've been speeding things up a bit lately. It's a matter of a few years before it crashes. The question is, what will rise from the ashes?
Click to expand...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?[/FONT]
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
I did once read these things professionally. There's a science to dissecting them.
Click to expand...
if it were SCIENCE, then we wouldnt need nearly so many lawyers or judges.
it is art, but it's a Jackson Pollack painting. it makes no sense either in it's elements or as a whole, except, "yep, thats a painting." or in this case, "Yep, thats a power-grab."



tokeprep said:
You can't pick and choose the cases that are good and bad law.
Click to expand...
sure you can. thats what judges do every day.

tokeprep said:
Raich is the magic talisman because it states my view of Wickard, which means the court has adopted my view, which means that view is the law, like it or not. You can talk all you like about what you think the case should mean so long as you accept the reality of what it does mean today in the "settled law."
Click to expand...
i disagree. i think they have twisted the law and constitution into a knot, by refusing to issue rulings on one single issue of contention at a time. the court has failed in it's number one job, CURTAILING THE POWER OF THE OTHER BRANCHES. instead they have created a confusing morass of entangling rulings which prevents any sensible person from drawing a conclusion without seeking the advice of the new Priest Caste of lawyers. the courts have empowered the legislative and executive branches with authority they are granted nowhere in the Constitution, simply to support the ends and means which satisfy their own agendas of the moment.



tokeprep said:
All that's been happening since the foundation of this nation. Rigidity isn't such a good thing in the face of evolution; the supreme court has stretched the commerce clause to reflect our modern reality rather than maintaining some static vision of colonial times.
Click to expand...
and it's not working.

or constitutiuon was drawn up as a tripartite contract between the people, the states and the union. now the states have been reduced to vassal status, the people are rapidly approaching Serfdom, and the nobody knows where they stand on any issue without first buying Plenary Indulgence from their local Temple Of Law, and seeking the blessings of The Clergy.

the courts have ignored specific instructions from the Constitution, invented new powers for themselves, and the other branches, and instead of ensuring that the government stays within the bounds of Constitutionality, they have become part of the demolition team trying to tear it down so they can erect a grand cathedral to glorify their own importance and power.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
if it were SCIENCE, then we wouldnt need nearly so many lawyers or judges.
it is art, but it's a Jackson Pollack painting. it makes no sense either in it's elements or as a whole, except, "yep, thats a painting." or in this case, "Yep, thats a power-grab."

sure you can. thats what judges do every day.
Click to expand...
I meant the application of precedent. All courts are bound to follow the supreme court's interpretation of the federal constitution; the supreme court's decisions comprise present precedent. Your earlier case is not "settled law" on the commerce clause because you have ignored almost 80 years of additional precedent, something judges have no freedom to do.

Likewise, there's significance to how the facts are applied to the rule developed in the case. When the court wants to set a specific rule in a specific situation, they say so; when they mean to do something generally, they do it generally. Wickard is a general rule.

i disagree. i think they have twisted the law and constitution into a knot, by refusing to issue rulings on one single issue of contention at a time. the court has failed in it's number one job, CURTAILING THE POWER OF THE OTHER BRANCHES. instead they have created a confusing morass of entangling rulings which prevents any sensible person from drawing a conclusion without seeking the advice of the new Priest Caste of lawyers. the courts have empowered the legislative and executive branches with authority they are granted nowhere in the Constitution, simply to support the ends and means which satisfy their own agendas of the moment.

and it's not working.

or constitutiuon was drawn up as a tripartite contract between the people, the states and the union. now the states have been reduced to vassal status, the people are rapidly approaching Serfdom, and the nobody knows where they stand on any issue without first buying Plenary Indulgence from their local Temple Of Law, and seeking the blessings of The Clergy.

the courts have ignored specific instructions from the Constitution, invented new powers for themselves, and the other branches, and instead of ensuring that the government stays within the bounds of Constitutionality, they have become part of the demolition team trying to tear it down so they can erect a grand cathedral to glorify their own importance and power
Click to expand...
I'm not taking issue with your ideological views on the constitution or federal power, only your statement that your view was "settled law" when it is not. The former is debatable while the latter is not.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
I meant the application of precedent. All courts are bound to follow the supreme court's interpretation of the federal constitution; the supreme court's decisions comprise present precedent. Your earlier case is not "settled law" on the commerce clause because you have ignored almost 80 years of additional precedent, something judges have no freedom to do.

Likewise, there's significance to how the facts are applied to the rule developed in the case. When the court wants to set a specific rule in a specific situation, they say so; when they mean to do something generally, they do it generally. Wickard is a general rule.



I'm not taking issue with your ideological views on the constitution or federal power, only your statement that your view was "settled law" when it is not. The former is debatable while the latter is not.
Click to expand...
Dredd Scott was settled law, "Separate but equal" was settled law, alcohol prohibition needed an constitutional amendment in the 20's but it doesnt any more, because the courts have decided to "Go A Different Direction" based on the new and specious "living document" interpretation which i refuse to accept.

the constitution hasnt changed, but the court has become a sickly wasted and cancerous imitation of what it once was.

eventually they will either return to the constitution or destroy it, unless the people take the decision out of their hands first.

i see the erosion beginning with the establishment of the Bar Associations as arbiters of who may or may not practice law, which in itself was an unconstitutional secession of congressional and state authority to a trade union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top