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 06-20-2016, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,779 posts, read 13,851,504 times
Reputation: 6951

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Confused again?

That would be true, if people made laws and legislation, the government didn't like because they were harmed.

A split decision would have said, the government cannot do what they were doing... Not keep doing it unconstitutionally. It would have fallen the same way it did, with majority saying it was unconstitutional.
Without a unanimous ruling, it would default to being unconstitutional for the government to do to the people.
Just one descent would make the legislation unconstitutional. There would be doubt.


I think you are the one confused, a 9-0 majority would have been required to over turn the DC gun law, a 9-0 ruling would have been required to allow corporations to make campaign contributions, one descent in either case would have meant either of those present laws was constitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2016, 09:57 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,002,563 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
That's not an analogy.
Comparing one thing to another is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 10:02 AM
 
4,491 posts, read 1,664,096 times
Reputation: 1986
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.
Ridiculous.

The very fact that we have liberal and conservative judges would make this impossible. I mean, when Trump gave his list of supreme court nominees, he added proudly that they're all against abortion. That's a very political reason. The best part, both sides on the abortion debate argue the constitution is on their side.

The constitution is vague; it's why we have a supreme court. They debate amongst themselves, and will come to a vote, and the majority will win after their discourse. The best part, that process is in the constitution, so this 9-0 voting rule would have to be put up to a vote in the supreme court, and if they are in fact reading the constitution, they'd have to shoot that law down unless a constitutional amendment is made.

You should be far more concerned that congress won't do it's constitutional duty and have a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 10:25 AM
 
9,506 posts, read 4,852,878 times
Reputation: 3863
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic View Post
Ridiculous.

The very fact that we have liberal and conservative judges would make this impossible. I mean, when Trump gave his list of supreme court nominees, he added proudly that they're all against abortion. That's a very political reason. The best part, both sides on the abortion debate argue the constitution is on their side.

The constitution is vague; it's why we have a supreme court. They debate amongst themselves, and will come to a vote, and the majority will win after their discourse. The best part, that process is in the constitution, so this 9-0 voting rule would have to be put up to a vote in the supreme court, and if they are in fact reading the constitution, they'd have to shoot that law down unless a constitutional amendment is made.

You should be far more concerned that congress won't do it's constitutional duty and have a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee.
The Constitution isn't vague on the absence of any duty on the Senate's part to hold hearings on a nominee. Nor is there anything about the number of votes needed. The 1st Court had 6 members, so the Constitution obviously doesn't say anything about 9, 5, or any other number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 02:23 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,316 posts, read 33,652,276 times
Reputation: 14181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I think you are the one confused, a 9-0 majority would have been required to over turn the DC gun law, a 9-0 ruling would have been required to allow corporations to make campaign contributions, one descent in either case would have meant either of those present laws was constitutional.

This is where you are confused.
No, it would have taken a 9 in favor -0 descents to uphold the DC gun law. Yes, just 1 desent it is unconstitutional, brings doubt, so the law is unconstitutional and not enforced.
It would take it a 9-0 ruling to make it constitutional, not unconstitutional. Overturn? an 8-1 ruling would have had doubt. Overturning it.

anything but a 9-0 would make it default, unconstitutional. Sure, nothing stops them from a 0-9 in favor of it being unconstitutional either. No doubt. No doubt. No doubt. Just 1 descent and it is unconstitutional for the legislation to exist.

Meaning if the government did not get a 9-0 in their favor, they are forbidden to do it.
Government would have to convince 9 people it was constitutional, not just 5, with 4 having doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 02:59 PM
 
841 posts, read 1,081,024 times
Reputation: 778
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.
Inter-racial marriage would not be illegal under this plan. Loving v. Virginia was a 9-0 decision.

Unanimous decisions are actually quite common.

That is not to say that I agree with the OP's idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 03:38 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 977,106 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
WOW!!!! I never said any part of the constitution was based on all or nothing.
It was my opinion, that to take liberty, it should be be unanimous. If there is any doubt, it should not happen.

Even one descent, would put doubt that it is Constitutional.

A unanimous decision would leave no doubt.

You didn't respond to my post in a debative way. You personally, wanted to question the messenger personally, because the message was undebatable to you.
Oh, well in that case, my opinion disagrees with your opinion, but then again my opinion is in line with the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 03:47 PM
 
3,299 posts, read 1,864,523 times
Reputation: 5467
Avoid taking advice on the Constitution from someone who doesn't know how to spell "dissent".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:38 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,316 posts, read 33,652,276 times
Reputation: 14181
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdJS View Post
Inter-racial marriage would not be illegal under this plan. Loving v. Virginia was a 9-0 decision.

Unanimous decisions are actually quite common.

That is not to say that I agree with the OP's idea.
Again, the confusion.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings' convictions in a unanimous decision.

It was a unanimous decision that it was unconstitutional for government to ban it. The people won.


No, it would have taken a 9 in favor of government -0 descents to uphold the marriage ban.
It was just the opposite and like I said, ""sure, nothing stops them from a 0-9 in favor of it being unconstitutional either"", making it unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:41 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,316 posts, read 33,652,276 times
Reputation: 14181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx View Post
Oh, well in that case, my opinion disagrees with your opinion, but then again my opinion is in line with the Constitution.

Duh!

This is all hypothetical crap here. To keep liberty out of the hands of Governments.
It is a discussion of ideas. I do not expect everyone to agree. But I did expect everyone to side with the liberty of the people over government power. I was wrong. People are more than willing to give up all their liberty so government can control them, making the decisions for the people.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:51 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top