Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17719
Online
#105 : July 11, 2013, 04:39:50 PM



The States seceded because of "States rights vs Federal Powers" and the omission of "nor the United States" from the 14th clearly limits States powers WITHOUT limiting Federal powers.


The 10th amendment ( not to mention the rest of the bill of rights ) was already supposed to be preventing the Federal government from doing anything outside their clearly enumerated powers , reserving everything else to the states , so saying the 14th amendment applies to them also would be redundant , would it not ?

.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17719
Online
#106 : July 11, 2013, 04:45:09 PM

That would cripple the government. An outstanding idea, I say.

LOL

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#107 : July 11, 2013, 04:46:58 PM



The States seceded because of "States rights vs Federal Powers" and the omission of "nor the United States" from the 14th clearly limits States powers WITHOUT limiting Federal powers.


The 10th amendment ( not to mention the rest of the bill of rights ) was already supposed to be preventing the Federal government from doing anything outside their clearly enumerated powers , reserving everything else to the states , so saying the 14th amendment applies to them also would be redundant , would it not ?

.

Not exactly. As you said, the 10th amendment prevents the federal government from doing anything outside of it's enumerated powers. The 14th and 15th amendments added enumerated powers.

In short, it would be like suggesting that a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. It doesn't make sense that a part of the Constitution can be considered unconstitutional. It's constitutional due to the mere fact that it's in the Constitution.
: July 11, 2013, 04:49:25 PM CBWx2


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17719
Online
#108 : July 11, 2013, 06:44:01 PM

Well,  the 14th says the Feds have the power to stop a state from denying a person life, liberty, and property . It does not say that the Feds CAN deny life , liberty or property themselves.  Therefore they don't have that power either .

That's why including them shouldn't have been necessary , and redundant. ( key word being "shouldn't" )

If we accept the premise that the Feds can do whatever they want , unless there is a specific clause saying they can't  , then you've basically just granted free reign outside a few basic restrictions, and in the process flipped original intent on it's ear. This thought process is exactly why we have so many abuses of power on both sides of the aisle , and why interpreting the constitution has become such a confusing clusterfuk even for the most brilliant  justices .  It was supposed to be exactly the opposite : The only powers granted are those listed , period.



: July 11, 2013, 06:54:23 PM Fire Mark Dummynik

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#109 : July 11, 2013, 06:52:43 PM

Well,  the 14th says the Feds have the power to stop a state from denying a person life, liberty, and property . It does not say that the Feds CAN deny life , liberty or property themselves.  Therefore they don't have that power either .

That's why including them wasn't necessary , and redundant.

If we accept the premise that the Feds can do whatever they want , unless there is a specific clause saying they can't  , then you've basically just granted free reign outside a few basic restrictions, and in the process flipped original intent on it's ear. This thought process is exactly why we have so many abuses of power on both sides of the aisle , and why interpreting the constitution has become such a confusing clusterfuk even for the most brilliant  justices .  It was supposed to be exactly the opposite : The only powers granted are those listed , period.

Ah I see. Excellent point.


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#110 : July 11, 2013, 06:54:38 PM

We should let the federal government appoint the people that are going to decide how much power they have.

What could possibly go wrong?


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20271
Online
#111 : July 11, 2013, 08:34:47 PM

Well,  the 14th says the Feds have the power to stop a state from denying a person life, liberty, and property . It does not say that the Feds CAN deny life , liberty or property themselves.  Therefore they don't have that power either .

That's why including them shouldn't have been necessary , and redundant. ( key word being "shouldn't" )

If we accept the premise that the Feds can do whatever they want , unless there is a specific clause saying they can't  , then you've basically just granted free reign outside a few basic restrictions, and in the process flipped original intent on it's ear. This thought process is exactly why we have so many abuses of power on both sides of the aisle , and why interpreting the constitution has become such a confusing clusterfuk even for the most brilliant  justices .  It was supposed to be exactly the opposite : The only powers granted are those listed , period.

Right. That is why the Constitution controls the Feds are be holding to the Constitution as are the States otherwise the Constitution is meaningless.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#112 : July 11, 2013, 11:18:19 PM

I'd just like to submit an addendum to Jason's post, and that is that the SCOTUS claiming the power of judicial review is probably the most blatant example of what he is talking about. It isn't even a matter of interpretation. The power isn't even implied in the Constitution, yet they helped themselves to it, and have done so for centuries. No other branch of government has come close to that level of acting outside of it's enumerated powers.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20271
Online
#113 : July 11, 2013, 11:21:12 PM

I'd just like to submit an addendum to Jason's post, and that is that the SCOTUS claiming the power of judicial review is probably the most blatant example of what he is talking about. It isn't even a matter of interpretation. The power isn't even implied in the Constitution, yet they helped themselves to it, and have done so for centuries. No other branch of government has come close to that level of acting outside of it's enumerated powers EXCEPT OF COURSE WHEN THEY RULE AS I LIKE

lol

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17719
Online
#114 : July 12, 2013, 08:06:01 AM

I'd just like to submit an addendum to Jason's post, and that is that the SCOTUS claiming the power of judicial review is probably the most blatant example of what he is talking about. It isn't even a matter of interpretation. The power isn't even implied in the Constitution, yet they helped themselves to it, and have done so for centuries. No other branch of government has come close to that level of acting outside of it's enumerated powers.

Yep .  It's a free for all at this point , and whoever nominates the most justices gets to make their own rules as they go.  The constitution is dead for all intents and purposes .

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20271
Online
#115 : July 12, 2013, 09:16:19 AM

Play out Brown v Board with no judicial review. Actually lay out what you think happens to Oliver and the others without it.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#116 : July 12, 2013, 12:04:24 PM

Play out Brown v Board with no judicial review. Actually lay out what you think happens to Oliver and the others without it.

Play out race relations in the United States had judicial review not struck down a number of civil rights bills passed by congress in an 1883 ruling, which were aimed at doing the same thing that Brown V Board did and more, except that they were passed about 75 years earlier. While you are trumpeting the virtues of Brown V Board, you are forgetting that it was that ruling, coupled with Plessy V Ferguson, that made Brown V Board necessary in the first place.

You should try reading John Marshall Harlan's dissent in both of those cases. The man knew more about the meaning of the Constitution and the effects that those decisions would have on race relations in the United States than any other justice of his day, but since he was in the minority, it didn't matter.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20271
Online
#117 : July 12, 2013, 12:21:23 PM

Play out Brown v Board with no judicial review. Actually lay out what you think happens to Oliver and the others without it.

Play out race relations in the United States had judicial review not struck down a number of civil rights bills passed by congress in an 1883 ruling, which were aimed at doing the same thing that Brown V Board did and more, except that they were passed about 75 years earlier. While you are trumpeting the virtues of Brown V Board, you are forgetting that it was that ruling, coupled with Plessy V Ferguson, that made Brown V Board necessary in the first place.

You should try reading John Marshall Harlan's dissent in both of those cases. The man knew more about the meaning of the Constitution and the effects that those decisions would have on race relations in the United States than any other justice of his day, but since he was in the minority, it didn't matter.

you're missing the point because you're trying so hard to advocate your position.  Nobody has ever said the SC is perfect, far from it (Plessy), but my comment was about the procedure, play out Brown without judicial review.

 Your focus on the results (i.e. "oh yeah, Brown isn't even req'd but for Plessy) illustrates my point that you are actually unhappy with the result but you are turning that displeasure with the result into a claim that the procedure is wrong, the the Court doesn't have the power to do what it does.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#118 : July 12, 2013, 12:23:30 PM

 But if his fellow justices found no objections to the Louisiana law, John Harlan could find little else. He wrote:

    "In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. . .The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."

Futhermore, argued Harlan, the decision would poison relations between the races.

    "What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments, which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation."


http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/harlan/dissent


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20271
Online
#119 : July 12, 2013, 12:29:46 PM

But if his fellow justices found no objections to the Louisiana law, John Harlan could find little else. He wrote:

    "In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. . .The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."

Futhermore, argued Harlan, the decision would poison relations between the races.

    "What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments, which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation."


http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/harlan/dissent

missing the point, I guess intentionally.  That is the RESULT not whether they have the power or whether the procedure makes sense.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center
Page: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools