24 minutes ago, Gannan said:

That's what the courts are for. But the courts are flawed too. Raw V. Wade has been the law since the 70's. Now because Trump stacked the courts with religious fanatics, it won't be anymore. The constitution is also extremely vague by design. When it was written, inalienable rights really only applied to white men.

Where does the constitution say it’s vague by design?  That’s what power hungry people say to people like you to get away with stuff that is just not permitted by the constitution 

The courts can’t violate the constitution either.

basically what it boils to is this.  Certain people think words just don’t have certain meaning.  If that’s true, then that leads you to the conclusion that it’s either the courts, the Congress or the President that makes the fundamental law.  I happen to believe words have meaning, so when the constitution says you shall not do something, nobody except the people who created the constitution can change that

57 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Where does the constitution say it’s vague by design?  That’s what power hungry people say to people like you to get away with stuff that is just not permitted by the constitution 

The courts can’t violate the constitution either.

basically what it boils to is this.  Certain people think words just don’t have certain meaning.  If that’s true, then that leads you to the conclusion that it’s either the courts, the Congress or the President that makes the fundamental law.  I happen to believe words have meaning, so when the constitution says you shall not do something, nobody except the people who created the constitution can change that

 

2 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Right and the constitution is the law and what congress does often does not follow from that

Pick one.

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

so when the constitution says you shall not do something, nobody except the people who created the constitution can change that

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

 I happen to believe words have meaning, so when the constitution says you shall not do something, nobody except the people who created the constitution can change that

So the re-animated corpse of Thomas Jefferson could change the constitution unilaterally?

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So the re-animated corpse of Thomas Jefferson could change the constitution unilaterally?

quick, to the time machine !!

How can this be difficult to understand? Laws are passed by Congress. So if Congress passes a law saying you can't marry someone of the opposite sex, then guess what -- same sex marriage is ILLEGAL. Now, if and when the Courts review that law and invalidate it as Unconstitutional, then the law is gone and same sex marriage is legal.

BUT -- just because you don't think a law is Constitutional doesn't mean you can ignore it. Right now, the Patriot Act is the law. I think it's unconstitutional, but it's the law. I think having to report transactions over $10k is unconstitutional, but I still do it BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW. 

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I've seen this video.. it gets better..

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

How can this be difficult to understand? Laws are passed by Congress. So if Congress passes a law saying you can't marry someone of the opposite sex, then guess what -- same sex marriage is ILLEGAL. Now, if and when the Courts review that law and invalidate it as Unconstitutional, then the law is gone and same sex marriage is legal.

BUT -- just because you don't think a law is Constitutional doesn't mean you can ignore it. Right now, the Patriot Act is the law. I think it's unconstitutional, but it's the law. I think having to report transactions over $10k is unconstitutional, but I still do it BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW. 

Generally I agree, though I think we both agree that interstate commerce has resulted in the federal government having authority that was originally intended to be reserved for the states so there's a bit of a state vs federal government question with some of this.

It would be a fair argument that a cohesive nation couldn't endure without stronger federal government than the framers built - understanding the realities of dealing with 13 states with vastly different economic engines that required more local authority be delegated for various structural reasons. So one could argue that the federal government had to adapt to keep the nation united.

But in a perfect world power would only have been ceded to the federal govt through amendments (e.g. 16th amendment)

IIRC wasn't the FBI actually authorized under some perversion of interstate commerce?

This movie definitely didn't need another sequel.

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

How can this be difficult to understand? Laws are passed by Congress. So if Congress passes a law saying you can't marry someone of the opposite sex, then guess what -- same sex marriage is ILLEGAL. Now, if and when the Courts review that law and invalidate it as Unconstitutional, then the law is gone and same sex marriage is legal.

BUT -- just because you don't think a law is Constitutional doesn't mean you can ignore it. Right now, the Patriot Act is the law. I think it's unconstitutional, but it's the law. I think having to report transactions over $10k is unconstitutional, but I still do it BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW. 

The only real law is who has the guns, and that seems to be the position you all are taking

Personally, I prefer a system that’s more civilized where you can read words and we both know what they mean

i mean otherwise why bother with the constitution at all?  Just say there’s a court a Congress and a President, they fight each other and the outcome is what it is

20 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

The only real law is who has the guns, and that seems to be the position you all are taking

Personally, I prefer a system that’s more civilized where you can read words and we both know what they mean

i mean otherwise why bother with the constitution at all?  Just say there’s a court a Congress and a President, they fight each other and the outcome is what it is

so your real issue with the constitution is that the words are too big for you to be able to follow it .... got it. 

17 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

so your real issue with the constitution is that the words are too big for you to be able to follow it .... got it. 

So you are saying we should just get rid of it?

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

So you are saying we should just get rid of it?

How did you get that...

18 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

so your real issue with the constitution is that the words are too big for you to be able to follow it .... got it. 

From this?

 

On 12/16/2021 at 11:18 AM, Gannan said:

That's what the courts are for. But the courts are flawed too. Raw V. Wade has been the law since the 70's. Now because Trump stacked the courts with religious fanatics, it won't be anymore. The constitution is also extremely vague by design. When it was written, inalienable rights really only applied to white men.

Religious fanatics even. 

Ever occur to you they might not be religious fanatics and actually what it is is that you are an atheist fanatic?

12 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Ever occur to you they might not be religious fanatics and actually what it is is that you are an atheist fanatic?

So you are saying Red Baron Deep Dish Pizza is better than Stouffers French Bread Pizza?