Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The insane Rand Paul, a man who always looks as if he just masturbated on a woman in a bear suit, really did say, "Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so." To which one can only respond, "Umm, actually...oh, never mind." Apparently, just because a man is a senator does not mean he understands basic civics.
The Supreme Court ruled slavery to be legal. I guess slavery is now ok, right?
The Supreme Court doesn't rule on legislation being "ok", whatever that means. It is, however, the arbiter on whether laws are constitutional. And at the time (1857) of the Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, slavery was perfectly constitutional and hence legal. As you may recall, there was a bit of a kerfluffle on the subject a few years later, ultimately resulting in the Constitution being amended.
The Supreme Court in 1857 was factually and legally right. Slavery was protected under the Constitution. Took the 13th to do away with it.
Likewise, Rand Paul is of course free to hold an opinion on the Supreme Court's decision, but the fact of the matter is, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. How do we know? Because it says so right in the freakin' document.
Not that a man of Rand Paul's character would have ever sided with the Abolitionists, were he somehow transported to the mid-1800s.
Well four out of nine justices agreed with Rand Paul,if Roberts had gone the other way there would have been plenty of obamacare supporters saying the same thing he said.Getting one conservative to side with four liberals doesn't make a law an 'incontrovertible truth',it merely shows that majority rules and the law will stand and is enforcible unless and until a later court decides otherwise by a majority vote.
The Supreme Court doesn't rule on legislation being "ok", whatever that means. It is, however, the arbiter on whether laws are constitutional. And at the time (1857) of the Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, slavery was perfectly constitutional and hence legal. As you may recall, there was a bit of a kerfluffle on the subject a few years later, ultimately resulting in the Constitution being amended.
The Supreme Court in 1857 was factually and legally right. Slavery was protected under the Constitution. Took the 13th to do away with it.
Likewise, Rand Paul is of course free to hold an opinion on the Supreme Court's decision, but the fact of the matter is, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. How do we know? Because it says so right in the freakin' document.
Not that a man of Rand Paul's character would have ever sided with the Abolitionists, were he somehow transported to the mid-1800s.
And how does that pesky little part in the Constitution, which says all activites not in the Constitution, are the responsibility of the state, fit into your equation?
And how does that pesky little part in the Constitution, which says all activites not in the Constitution, are the responsibility of the state, fit into your equation?
I am not sure I follow. Are you trying to use the 10th to argue Rand Paul's position, or are you still using slavery as an example of the Supreme Court being wrong, or..?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
