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.
Article 1 Section 8 defines the powers of congress. Section 9 states what powers they do not have.
Examples should come from those areas. Preferably 9.
Article 3, section 2 defines the jurisdiction of the SC. Examples should come from there pertaining to the court.
Quote:
(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.)
I didn't becasue I looked into his policies as gov.
I'ms till waiting for examples, BTW.
Are you serious? Still waiting for examples? There are tens of thousands to choose from. Again, not always the laws and their meaning as a hole, but designations within the laws. All you have to do, to find hundreds of past case law, is do some searches on suits filed on behalf of citizens who find laws or acts that violate the constitution There are many past cases to read about. Many are quite informative and interesting.
Here is one for you........Hate speech laws, hate crime laws, that ad enhancements to already existing laws, based solely on race MIGHT be unconstitutional. . Why I find most who engage in hate speech based on race to be voile, I do not believe these laws are within the constitution. This is my own personal interpretation. That does not mean I condone hate speech. For the record!
Many laws that identify specific races of people, why well intended, violate the constitution in my opinion. They could be constructed in other ways to achieve their goal, but politicians want votes, so they do ahead and develop laws based on race.
Another would be search and seizure laws, allowing law enforcement agencies to confiscate personal property and sell, even before someone is convicted. They passed one law relating to drugs decades ago and it has now spiraled into almost any and all alleged criminal activity. This is clearly against the constitution in my opinion. But again, the superior courts will ultimately decide these cases, likely years from now.
Last edited by WilliamHarman; 09-05-2009 at 06:55 PM..
Your not writing a book. Your defending your position.
This is not about how you feel about laws. This is about demonstrating where they go over the boundaries and why. So, writing about how you don't like them is not going to be enough.
Your not writing a book. Your defending your position.
This is not about how you feel about laws. This is about demonstrating where they go over the boundaries and why. So, writing about how you don't like them is not going to be enough.
I can be specific, but as you know, this requires an extreme amount of typing. I like the hate laws. They deter crimes against minorities. I like many laws and benefit from them as you do. But in many cases, they violate the constitution.
I am not anti-law and have never expressed that here! I am not some anit-government rebel, militia guy living in the hills here! Quite the contrary. My position was originally for congress to acknowledge the constitution and make laws according to it, that do not violate it.
If you want me to break these topics down specifically, I'll have to come back another day.
But lets get the crap out of the way. I do not consider you to be anti-law or a militia guy or some anti-government rebel. Let's just get rid of that. We don't need it.
Are you serious? Still waiting for examples? There are tens of thousands to choose from. Again, not always the laws and their meaning as a hole, but designations within the laws. All you have to do, to find hundreds of past case law, is do some searches on suits filed on behalf of citizens who find laws or acts that violate the constitution There are many past cases to read about. Many are quite informative and interesting.
Here is one for you........Hate speech laws, hate crime laws, that ad enhancements to already existing laws, based solely on race MIGHT be unconstitutional. . Why I find most who engage in hate speech based on race to be voile, I do not believe these laws are within the constitution. This is my own personal interpretation. That does not mean I condone hate speech. For the record!
Many laws that identify specific races of people, why well intended, violate the constitution in my opinion. They could be constructed in other ways to achieve their goal, but politicians want votes, so they do ahead and develop laws based on race.
Another would be search and seizure laws, allowing law enforcement agencies to confiscate personal property and sell, even before someone is convicted. They passed one law relating to drugs decades ago and it has now spiraled into almost any and all alleged criminal activity. This is clearly against the constitution in my opinion. But again, the superior courts will ultimately decide these cases, likely years from now.
1. You submitted the proposal, you provide examples. I don't have to do your research for you.
2. I don't agree with "hate crime" legislation either, but only becasue it further amrginalize minorities. Doesn't mean they are unconstitutional, however. I invite you to show which Article or Amendment they step on.
3. The idea of a Protected Class is built into this Nation, and codified by the Civil Rights Acts of 1968 and later. Refusing discrimination based on a Protected Class status is not unconstitutional, and seeks to uphold Constitutional Principles as well. I willa gain invite you to point out which Article or Amendment this violates.
4. Please provide examples of pre-convicted people having their siezed property sold. When a person is convicted of a crime they loose several rights and privilages, and I see no problem with the assets gathered by criminal means being sold off in an effort to off-set the cost of their court proceedings and incarceration.
Firstly, while I do not support Universal Health Care, indeed much of the alleged "health care reforms" offered by Congress, mind detailing which Constitutional Rights would be infringed upon by either?
Also, there is no "Constitutional Right to Life" sorry. Just another empty piece of anti-choice rhetoric.
BTW, I agree perfectly that we should "go back to living by the Constitution". We can start by eliminating the PATRIOT and DOMA acts.
Of course that would mean returning our original Motto and Pledge of Allegience, as well as ensuring the Ten Comamndments don't show up in our courthouses as well. And it would be quite pleasent indeed not having to hear certain people whine and cry about their "religion being kicked out of public schools", and it would certainly save a LOT of cash everytime some fundies tried to sue to get their religious symbology put on public property.
BTW, deckdoc, I am quite well aware of the history of our Pledge.
Originally written by Rev. Francis Bellamy for "The Youth's Companion", it didn't contain a Christian prayer from it's official induction into the US Flag Codes in 1932 until, under lobby pressure by the Knights of Columbus, 'under God" was added in 1954.
Point is, "under God" is Constitutionally illegal.
1. You submitted the proposal, you provide examples. I don't have to do your research for you.
2. I don't agree with "hate crime" legislation either, but only becasue it further amrginalize minorities. Doesn't mean they are unconstitutional, however. I invite you to show which Article or Amendment they step on.
3. The idea of a Protected Class is built into this Nation, and codified by the Civil Rights Acts of 1968 and later. Refusing discrimination based on a Protected Class status is not unconstitutional, and seeks to uphold Constitutional Principles as well. I willa gain invite you to point out which Article or Amendment this violates.
4. Please provide examples of pre-convicted people having their siezed property sold. When a person is convicted of a crime they loose several rights and privilages, and I see no problem with the assets gathered by criminal means being sold off in an effort to off-set the cost of their court proceedings and incarceration.
The constitution is supposed to be color-blind in a sense that it does not permit the government to be used as an instrument to impose injury on someone solely because of his or he race. Or a law protecting an indivdual at the potential cost of another based on race. "Congress shall make no laws" preceeds this. Yet they do it all the time! Racial harmony is not served when race is used as an exclusionist tool against innocent individuals by policy-makers in order to achieve a particular "balancing" of sorts.
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.
