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.
Have you failed to read in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? It says that when controversies arise between the US and the people that the Supreme Court has the power to determine the legality of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
You must be reading a different Constitution. Below is the entire Section III. Nowhere does it state that the court has the power to determine the legality of a law. It says that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact," which means that one can appeal to the Supreme Court.
Quote:
Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
You must be reading a different Constitution. Below is the entire Section III. Nowhere does it state that the court has the power to determine the legality of a law. It says that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact," which means that one can appeal to the Supreme Court.
It does not have to say so, verbatim. It does say that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.."
Within the statement above is clearly saying that whatever all falls within the power of judges, that the Supreme court has those powers.
It does not have to say so, verbatim. It does say that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.."
Within the statement above is clearly saying that whatever all falls within the power of judges, that the Supreme court has those powers.
Does it surprise you, that some will see this differently, not me, Obama is his own worse enemy. And a loud mouth that think he knows it all.
The tune always seems to change when things have to do with anything Obama, wake up people.
You must be reading a different Constitution. Below is the entire Section III. Nowhere does it state that the court has the power to determine the legality of a law. It says that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact," which means that one can appeal to the Supreme Court.
What you say is very true up to a point. The Court has determined since Marbury v. Madison that they determine the Constitutionality of laws by comparing them to the Constitution as to what is allowed and what is not. The other branches of government have accepted judicial review since that time but Our Leader is trying to destroy the power of the Court with his crap. He says that they have never determined legally arrived at laws to be unconstitutional and is very wrong about that.
The Supreme Court is the final determiner since the Constitution says that the judicial power shall extend to them and such inferior courts as from time to time may be established. You do see those words there, don't you.
Gee, Aero was off by 3 million. Note the phraseology is number of "legal" abortions since 1973 (through 2008). So, is this logical enough?
“According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States.”
Emotions are neither good, nor bad; they just are. You seem bent on defining ‘emotions’ in a negative light. Much like temperature; hot or cold, the emotions happy and sad are just states, not having an absolute positive or negative quality by and of themselves. No, it takes man’s arbitrary judgment to label an emotion in a negative or positive light, as you have done.
I’ll offer this word of explanation, so you understand what I mean when I use the word arbitrary? Arbitrariness is man’s effort – in his mind, using free will, to determine what is right, and what is wrong. So, any ’it’s my body’, or ‘life doesn’t begin until birth’ declaration is arbitrary. In the same vein, the many invented rights – not in the constitution/bill of rights – are arbitrary. Some men (including the female sex here) decided ‘such and such’ is a right. To me, this is all so much whining, “But, it’s my right.” There is only one absolute authority, and it is no living being.
In conclusion, me – or you - saying, “I’m smarter than you, or better than you, even, ‘better off to then you’.”, is likewise an arbitrary judgment on my/your part. I – as you - can certainly summon up arguments to support any of these arbitrary judgments, but that is just me/you determining what is correct and right. Supporting what I want to believe. But, in the end, there is no absolute way to determine who is right, or who is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Earthlyfather, I'm not a literalist, and I'm not picking at a writer reaching back a generation for context. I am all about context. And the context here has nothing to do with argument, it's about emotions. If you were a critical thinker, you would recognize when there is no logic to an argument, but instead the argument is all about emotional appeal. Critical thinkers take issue to arguments where emotion rather than logic is the appeal. Perhaps you should rethink how you characterize yourself before you start trying to characterize others.
I often wonder how much Obama really does know about the Constitution, the very subject he lectured to college students about. Is there really a chance that he thinks he can destroy the Constitution with all his machinations? It sure looks like that is the case.
***Anticipating nearly every form of government corruption, our framers specifically designed the Constitution to prevent tyranny. But they never imagined the perfidy of 20th-century liberals. (Probably because the framers didn't have NBC.)***
One more quote from the link that I find very acceptable to non-progressives would be, One hint that a "constitutional" right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution is that during oral argument, as the lawyer arguing for this apocryphal right ticked off the constitutional provisions allegedly supporting it -- the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Ninth Amendment, "and a variety of others" -- the entire courtroom burst into laughter.
The ruling in Roe, incidentally, struck down the duly constituted and passed laws of all 50 states. (But that is soooo 53 million abortions ago ...)
We really have to cut Obama some slack. He wasn't raised in this country, so it's understandable that he's a little ignorant about the laws and processes in place.
If it's a homerun it's in the ballpark of a rat. A very small and nasty ballpark to be sure. This woman is nothing more than a bundle of hate wrapped around a core of ignorance. She possibly could be correct about something one out of a hundred times but why would anyone listen to anything this skank says when she's wrong the other 99 times.
LOL - insert "he" instead of "she" and this could just as easily be about Obama.
Gee, Aero was off by 3 million. Note the phraseology is number of "legal" abortions since 1973 (through 2008). So, is this logical enough?
“According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States.”
Emotions are neither good, nor bad; they just are. You seem bent on defining ‘emotions’ in a negative light. Much like temperature; hot or cold, the emotions happy and sad are just states, not having an absolute positive or negative quality by and of themselves. No, it takes man’s arbitrary judgment to label an emotion in a negative or positive light, as you have done.
I’ll offer this word of explanation, so you understand what I mean when I use the word arbitrary? Arbitrariness is man’s effort – in his mind, using free will, to determine what is right, and what is wrong. So, any ’it’s my body’, or ‘life doesn’t begin until birth’ declaration is arbitrary. In the same vein, the many invented rights – not in the constitution/bill of rights – are arbitrary. Some men (including the female sex here) decided ‘such and such’ is a right. To me, this is all so much whining, “But, it’s my right.” There is only one absolute authority, and it is no living being.
In conclusion, me – or you - saying, “I’m smarter than you, or better than you, even, ‘better off to then you’.”, is likewise an arbitrary judgment on my/your part. I – as you - can certainly summon up arguments to support any of these arbitrary judgments, but that is just me/you determining what is correct and right. Supporting what I want to believe. But, in the end, there is no absolute way to determine who is right, or who is wrong.
Then you make up definitions to suit yourself. Maybe you ought to reference a dictionary, because arbitrary isn't about free will at all. Arbitrary is about choices being made without a rational basis.
And frankly, your anti-choice stance doesn't interest me. It is my body. It's not yours. There's nothing arbitrary about that. Just like you wouldn't like me dictating your health choices, I don't want you dictating mine. That's a rational, reasonable position. Your position, on the other hand, is most certainly arbitrary.
And your contention that the 53,000,000 was not factual? You didn't respond, so I'll help you out. It is a CDC statistic, included in a research paper by the Guttmacher Institute, which I understand is an extension of Planned Parenthood. The first sentence of your post that I originally responded too was about the 53m number being factual, so I addressed it first. Emotionally, you leapth to the defense of your right, rather then deal with your emotional and inaccurate characterization of that number being incorrect.
As to the definition, all I did was explain my grounding. I think without display of emotion, accusation,or condemnation. People explain things in conversations.
Anyway, it is not my definition. Arbitrary versus absolute is about context, which is why I bothered to explain the context. You are free to not agree with it, but it is the context from which I view the world. I'm delineating the difference between a Christian's belief in the absoluteness of God's word, versus man's choices, or exercise of his free will. Since you are sensitive about gender, understand I use the words, 'men and/or man's', as meaning the homosapien species, and thus inclusive women and men. You may not be a Christian, and therefore do not understand a Christian's understanding and belief in the absoluteness.
Nowhere have I, nor have I condemned your right to choose. Right to choose is too simplistic and self-centered to explain the loss of 50,000,000~ lives. Diseases don't have to take that many souls, before societies swing into action to combat the disease. Aids? The bird flu. Polio? The starvation and atrocities that have unfolded in Africa don't have to approach that level to garner the world's attention.
And we shouldn't be concerned about the loss of 50m~ lives?
The emotion and narrow focus of your defense competes with your contention of rationable and reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Then you make up definitions to suit yourself. Maybe you ought to reference a dictionary, because arbitrary isn't about free will at all. Arbitrary is about choices being made without a rational basis.
And frankly, your anti-choice stance doesn't interest me. It is my body. It's not yours. There's nothing arbitrary about that. Just like you wouldn't like me dictating your health choices, I don't want you dictating mine. That's a rational, reasonable position. Your position, on the other hand, is most certainly arbitrary.
He's horrible! I am so sick of this whole admin, period.
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.
