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.
All that means is that one can appeal a case, such as a conviction, up to the Supreme Court. That doesn't give the court the right to declare laws unconstitutional. That power of the court was grabbed via Marbury v Madison. As I said, declaring a law unconstitutional is not specifically codified in the constitution. Yet, everyone agrees that the court has such power.
Another area not in the constitution is the debt ceiling, which is not mentioned at all.
Excuse me - the decision in Marbury v. Madison was based partly on that clause in the Constitution. Do some research. Allowing the courts to decide both law and fact means that they can declare a law null and void - or unconstitutional. That is how the court read the constitution and why the ruled as they did in Marbury v. Madison. If the courts could not judge the law then the clause would have said they could only review facts.
I notice that you ignored what i wrote about jury trial, right to vote, freedom to move, and the 10th amendment.
Funny, why so YOU think YOU can speak for ALL republicans?
How come the poster to whom I responded thought that they could speak about ALL Republicans in such a manner? Do you hold people to a double standard much?
If you can't identify unfounded generalizations and understand when someone is pointing out those fallacies - then I can't help you.
Also - you can't just throw out the term "woman hater" without stating the basis on which you are labeling a person as such.
For the record - I do not hate women and I don't know a single Republican who does hate women. Several of those Republicans are women who are opposed to abortion. Am I correct in assuming that you think those women hate themselves?
Excuse me - the decision in Marbury v. Madison was based partly on that clause in the Constitution. Do some research. Allowing the courts to decide both law and fact means that they can declare a law null and void - or unconstitutional. That is how the court read the constitution and why the ruled as they did in Marbury v. Madison. If the courts could not judge the law then the clause would have said they could only review facts.
I notice that you ignored what i wrote about jury trial, right to vote, freedom to move, and the 10th amendment.
Yes, the Marshall court used that clause as a pretext to over-reach -- just as other courts have found vague language to give them an excuse to rule the way they want. The point is that you will not see language in the constitution for duties of the SCOTUS that reads, "to review and determine the constitutionality of acts of Congress."
Thus, you argue that only what is plainly written in the constitution is legal, yet you aren't so strict when it suits your needs.
Yes, the Marshall court used that clause as a pretext to over-reach -- just as other courts have found vague language to give them an excuse to rule the way they want. The point is that you will not see language in the constitution for duties of the SCOTUS that reads, "to review and determine the constitutionality of acts of Congress."
Thus, you argue that only what is plainly written in the constitution is legal, yet you aren't so strict when it suits your needs.
The basis for Marbury v Madison was clearly stated in the constitution - it is what the Marshall court used to justify the ruling - as you have already claimed. They did not read anything into the text - they took it at its face value: a court with appellate jurisdiction may review the law and the facts. It is right there in black and white.
You have no argument by citing Marbury v. Madison in your attempt to justify Roe v. Wade.
You don't think that a newborn baby is innocent? I do.
I don't think God does, at least that's what I've heard.
So tell me, at what age are you ok with locking them up forever, executing them, and/or wishing they were never born becasue of whatever horrible thing they did?
It's like kittens...they are cute and everyone loves them but when they turn into howling tom cats we throw stuff at them and trap them.
Human nature isn't "innocent". This has nothing to do with abortion however but you guys keep using the word like it's magical and all those little fetuses will just coo and be gerber babies forever.
How come the poster to whom I responded thought that they could speak about ALL Republicans in such a manner? Do you hold people to a double standard much?
If you can't identify unfounded generalizations and understand when someone is pointing out those fallacies - then I can't help you.
Also - you can't just throw out the term "woman hater" without stating the basis on which you are labeling a person as such.
For the record - I do not hate women and I don't know a single Republican who does hate women. Several of those Republicans are women who are opposed to abortion. Am I correct in assuming that you think those women hate themselves?
Lol, the GOP has acted and spoken loud and clear, year after year how they feel about women. You continue to vote for the same angry old white men that are nothing but the he-men woman haters club. They call a hearing on women's health, but excluded women from the table. When one of the wingnut talking heads, such as sex tourist Rush, bashes women you all come rushing to their support.
Last edited by buzzards27; 05-30-2012 at 08:01 PM..
Lol, the GOP has acted and spoken loud and clear, year after year how they feel about women. You continue to vote for the same angry old white men that are nothing but the he-men woman haters club. They call a hearing on women's health, but excluded women from the table. When one of the wingnut talking heads, such as sex tourist Rush, basher women you all come rushing to their support.
Then why do liberals hate on Sarah Palin who has 5 kids? Oh, because her youngest is disabled. Can't let the disabled be born, don't have any room for them. BUT I think they would still hate her for having 5 kids, 2 is enough for any woman. Talk about trying to control women.
Prior to the Sexual Revolution, sex was seen as inextricably linked with reproduction. The most tragic change has been to see them separated.
Your total and complete lack of any knowledge of world history is the problem.
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.
