Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree98Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 4th, 2017, 01:40 PM   #91
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Let's watch the Canadian expert on all things American run: provide one post by where I stated that a Supreme Court opinion has no impact, you know with grasping and whatnot.

What I have stated as fact is that you know less than zero regarding this subject and your Wikipedia degree will not aid you.
Nice dodge. Why do you keep railing against the SC decisions if you realize they are actually important and you're not? Accept the fact that what you think doesn't matter.
RNG is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 01:42 PM   #92
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Nice dodge. Why do you keep railing against the SC decisions if you realize they are actually important and you're not? Accept the fact that what you think doesn't matter.
Let's watch the Canadian expert on all things American run: provide one post by where I stated that a Supreme Court opinion has no impact, you know with grasping and whatnot.

What I have stated as fact is that you know less than zero regarding this subject and your Wikipedia degree will not aid you.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 02:22 PM   #93
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Let's watch the Canadian expert on all things American run: provide one post by where I stated that a Supreme Court opinion has no impact, you know with grasping and whatnot.

What I have stated as fact is that you know less than zero regarding this subject and your Wikipedia degree will not aid you.
HUH?? You opinion DOES matter, other than something for us the bat around and talk about?
WTF?

Last edited by Hollywood; July 4th, 2017 at 06:02 PM. Reason: typo
Hollywood is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 04:15 PM   #94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Nice dodge. Why do you keep railing against the SC decisions if you realize they are actually important and you're not? Accept the fact that what you think doesn't matter.
What is important about Supreme Court decisions is that they are in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as expressed during its framing and ratification process which gives context to its text.



When a majority on the Court ignores the above fundamental rules, we wind up with judicial tyranny as found in the Kelo case.

It is instructive and very telling to note in reading the majority opinion in Kelo that Justice Stevens actually indicates the Court will ignore the meaning of “public use” as it was understood when our Constitution was adopted, justifying such tyranny because of the “evolving needs of society” even though a fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires:


”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) ___ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:


while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.


The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:


The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”



The bottom line is, what is the sense in having a written constitution if those it was intended to restrain may, at any time, breach its text and legislative intent?


JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
johnwk is online now  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:37 PM   #95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
You lie.


The Court never addressed my assertion that federal funding of the arts violates 1st Amendment protection. Federal funding does so by allowing A, who has received federal grant money taxed away from B, to vocalize and express their opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than B, who has been taxed to finance Aís expressions and feelings in public, while Bís financial resources are reduced by the hand of the federal government in its quest to fund Aís speech and expressions even though B may disagree with A's speech and expressions.

Using federal power to compel one person to finance the speech of another is a plain violation of federal power.


JWK
So even though the court had a case involving the NEA, they didn't even consider the issues you brought up.

Reality bites, huh?

Is that because the issues you bring up are just such nonsense, that no real attorney would even consider the argument?
goober is online now  
Old July 5th, 2017, 04:55 AM   #96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,437
Do you really support such tyranny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
You lie.


The Court never addressed my assertion that federal funding of the arts violates 1st Amendment protection. Federal funding does so by allowing A, who has received federal grant money taxed away from B, to vocalize and express their opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than B, who has been taxed to finance Aís expressions and feelings in public, while Bís financial resources are reduced by the hand of the federal government in its quest to fund Aís speech and expressions even though B may disagree with A's speech and expressions.

Using federal power to compel one person to finance the speech of another is a plain violation of federal power.


JWK


So even though the court had a case involving the NEA, they didn't even consider the issues you brought up.

Reality bites, huh?

Is that because the issues you bring up are just such nonsense, that no real attorney would even consider the argument?
Is your above obfuscation an admission that you lied?

In addition, are you really ok with government force being used to confiscate a hard working personís earned wages which are then transferred at the discretion of government to another individual so they may express their personal beliefs and expressions more forcefully than the wage earner who has been taxed and may disagree with the tax-getters personal beliefs and expressions? Do you really support such tyranny?

JWK


ĒThat to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .Ē Jefferson, "A Bill For establishing religious freedom."


.

Last edited by johnwk; July 5th, 2017 at 04:59 AM.
johnwk is online now  
Old July 5th, 2017, 07:24 AM   #97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
So why all the effort to strip people of their rights?

Why not work on promoting better sexual habits?
Since you ducked the question, I will ask again, what rights specifically are being stripped?
Thanks from Jimmyb
Sensible is offline  
Old July 5th, 2017, 10:20 AM   #98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensible View Post
Since you ducked the question, I will ask again, what rights specifically are being stripped?
I thought I said the right of a woman to choose abortion.
Are you saying there isn't an effort to strip this right away?
goober is online now  
Old July 5th, 2017, 10:23 AM   #99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
I thought I said the right of a woman to choose abortion.
Are you saying there isn't an effort to strip this right away?
Where is there a special right in the constitution to kill an unborn child? Spare me the fetus argument, I have destroyed that on in the past. Here is a new one, should the father have say since it is his child also?
Sensible is offline  
Old July 5th, 2017, 10:31 AM   #100
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
I thought I said the right of a woman to choose abortion.
Are you saying there isn't an effort to strip this right away?
Where is this right in the Constitution and where is this power to rule on this by the Supreme Court?
Thanks from Sensible
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bill, canít, ending, funding, introduced, parenthood, planned, type



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most Americans Want To Keep Funding For Planned Parenthood And Obamacare skews13 Current Events 29 January 30th, 2017 09:35 AM
Obama To Protect Planned Parenthood Funding Permanently skews13 Healthcare 7 September 10th, 2016 06:34 PM
Planned Parenthood Goes To Court To Fight Funding Cuts In Alabama LongWinded Current Events 62 August 31st, 2015 02:46 PM
planned parenthood still at it webguy4 Current Events 1 July 16th, 2014 10:38 AM
Planned Parenthood ad gmeyers1944 Abortion 44 September 5th, 2010 06:36 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.