Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2016, 06:43 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,737,914 times
Reputation: 1721

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
Why stop at judges? Only politicians with 100% of the vote can serve.
Bad analogy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2016, 07:49 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,605,811 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
So are you saying Any ruling that is not 9-0 should keep its current status, or that the challenge/affirmation should equal airing on the side of rights.

Gay marriage for example.

Are you saying, it not passing 9-0 should make it legal(greater freedom) , or that it would return it to state by state as it was before the ruling. ?

I'm saying that if it brought to the supreme court. The government has enacted legislation.
A person or group of people find unconstitutional.
If a lower court did not find it to be constitutional by unanimous decision, for government to do what the legislation says government can do to the person or people harmed. The legislation would be deemed unconstitutional on the grounds of the case for doubt. Things life & death, freedom & Liberty, should be without doubt.

If the lower court deemed it to be constitutional with a unanimous decision, then an appeal to the higher courts would be in order. To see if a unanimous decision can be argued there.

Liberty would always remain with the people, when in doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 07:53 PM
 
13,684 posts, read 9,005,080 times
Reputation: 10405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Bad analogy
I guess a better would be: only those Senate and House bills with 100 percent approval would be sent to the President.

Anyway, it is all hooey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 07:54 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,185,642 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Only unanimous rulings, should be considered Constitutional.
If there is any doubt from even one of the judges appointed, it should not be determined as constitutional, to maintain as much freedom for the people as possible.
LMAO...got anymore bright ideas?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 07:55 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,605,811 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
Why stop at judges? Only politicians with 100% of the vote can serve.

Because politicians hardly ever research the legality of the law, much less know the constitutions of their states, much less the United States. Judges decide if the politicians are abiding by the peoples rules. Any doubt and it would unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 08:08 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,605,811 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx View Post
It sounds like you don't like the Constitution....that seems to be quite common for people to only like the Constitution when it agrees with them. Funny to see one be all pro-2nd Amendment, yet be anti-rules of the Supreme Court.

Sounds like?.. I wasn't clear enough not to come to a concise conclusion?

The Bill of Rights secures freedom and liberty. Keeping government legislation from treading and breaking it, is now, not liking the Constitution. That is a stretch, but it went there.


Since you want to make it personal and about me, instead of what I said, the better conclusion would have been, It sounds like I don't like legislation, were there is doubt it is constitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 08:30 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,193,530 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
So - sodomy and inter-racial marriage would still be illegal, no Miranda rights, and we'd have tougher gun laws.



actually, with a 9-0 ruling, there would be almost no gun control, NFA34 and GCA68 would not exist, and there would be no such government agency as the batf. also, social security would not exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 08:39 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,605,811 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
actually, with a 9-0 ruling, there would be almost no gun control, NFA34 and GCA68 would not exist, and there would be no such government agency as the batf. also, social security would not exist.

Ya, all that unconstitutional stuff would not exist.
My point precisely!



The crap they pull on us with 5/4 rulings, 6/3 rulings, 7/2 rulings and 8/1 rulings. would be liberty for the people

There should be no doubt about liberty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 08:44 PM
 
Location: North America
14,204 posts, read 12,276,638 times
Reputation: 5565
There is no doubt about liberty. Just people that have a problem when it doesn't only apply to them is all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2016, 08:49 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,605,811 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
So - sodomy and inter-racial marriage would still be illegal, no Miranda rights, and we'd have tougher gun laws.

That might be true if.... It were the people making legislation against the government and the government got harmed and took it to the supreme court. But see... It doesn't work like that.

It is government that creates legislation, that harms people. It is the people that challenge legislation in the courts.
Those were not 9-0 rulings in the examples above. The government even trying to legislate it would make it unconstitutional, without a unanimous ruling saying government could legislate it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top