Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#75 : July 10, 2013, 09:23:43 AM


How does the portion of the voting rights act that was struck down violate the constitution when there is no constitutional requirement that suggests that congress "has to" change the law to "fit current conditions"? The conservative majority invented this Constitutional requirement. It doesn't really exist.

I thought Progressives considered the Constitution to be a living document? If so, doesn't that imply change to fit current conditions is pretty much mandatory?


Good point

Obama or Bush exceeding their Constitutional authority = Assuming dictatorial powers.

SCOTUS exceeding it's Constitutional authority = changing to fit current conditions.

Interesting...

Because that's exactly what I said. Wait, no it wasn't, in fact not even in the same country let alone ballpark!!!

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#76 : July 10, 2013, 11:22:28 AM


How does the portion of the voting rights act that was struck down violate the constitution when there is no constitutional requirement that suggests that congress "has to" change the law to "fit current conditions"? The conservative majority invented this Constitutional requirement. It doesn't really exist.

I thought Progressives considered the Constitution to be a living document? If so, doesn't that imply change to fit current conditions is pretty much mandatory?


Good point

Obama or Bush exceeding their Constitutional authority = Assuming dictatorial powers.

SCOTUS exceeding it's Constitutional authority = changing to fit current conditions.

Interesting...

Because that's exactly what I said. Wait, no it wasn't, in fact not even in the same country let alone ballpark!!!

What you said addresses absoluteley no point that I've made, and neither does the "progressive" jab. The Constitution being a "living document" has nothing to do with a SC decision in which the SC struck down a law passed by Congress with absolutely no Constitutional justification for doing so.

This isn't a matter of strict constructionism versus constitutional interpretation, which you seem to be inferring with your statement. In order for you to interpret a section of the Constitution to justify a ruling, that section must actually be in the Constitution.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
#77 : July 10, 2013, 12:41:43 PM

Well luckily " general welfare" means " anything and everything " to the progressives,  so there is absolutely nothing that is NOT in the constitution.

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

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#78 : July 10, 2013, 12:47:02 PM

Well luckily " general welfare" means " anything and everything " to the progressives,  so there is absolutely nothing that is NOT in the constitution.

Was this case argued on the grounds of the "General Welfare" clause? Must have missed it.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
#79 : July 10, 2013, 02:24:11 PM

No , just making a joke.

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

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#80 : July 10, 2013, 02:51:19 PM


How does the portion of the voting rights act that was struck down violate the constitution when there is no constitutional requirement that suggests that congress "has to" change the law to "fit current conditions"? The conservative majority invented this Constitutional requirement. It doesn't really exist.

I thought Progressives considered the Constitution to be a living document? If so, doesn't that imply change to fit current conditions is pretty much mandatory?


Good point

Obama or Bush exceeding their Constitutional authority = Assuming dictatorial powers.

SCOTUS exceeding it's Constitutional authority = changing to fit current conditions.

Interesting...

Because that's exactly what I said. Wait, no it wasn't, in fact not even in the same country let alone ballpark!!!

What you said addresses absoluteley no point that I've made, and neither does the "progressive" jab. The Constitution being a "living document" has nothing to do with a SC decision in which the SC struck down a law passed by Congress with absolutely no Constitutional justification for doing so.

This isn't a matter of strict constructionism versus constitutional interpretation, which you seem to be inferring with your statement. In order for you to interpret a section of the Constitution to justify a ruling, that section must actually be in the Constitution.

If the constitution needs to be flexible and adapt to current social and economic conditions and mentalities, does that not imply other laws have to as well? After all the Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land is it not?

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#81 : July 10, 2013, 04:03:24 PM


How does the portion of the voting rights act that was struck down violate the constitution when there is no constitutional requirement that suggests that congress "has to" change the law to "fit current conditions"? The conservative majority invented this Constitutional requirement. It doesn't really exist.

But maybe it should.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#82 : July 10, 2013, 05:09:40 PM

CBW is just about politics. He is complaining about "judicial review" in the voting act case but not any of the other decisions (until I pointed that out to him)  including the affirmative action decision, which specifically relates to a change in conditions

By the way, anyone with half a brain and a willingness to read could see the flaw on CBW's " plucked from a liberal blog" argument that Congress isn't req'd by the Constitution argument ...hint: how is "race" treated under the law?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#83 : July 10, 2013, 05:10:30 PM


How does the portion of the voting rights act that was struck down violate the constitution when there is no constitutional requirement that suggests that congress "has to" change the law to "fit current conditions"? The conservative majority invented this Constitutional requirement. It doesn't really exist.

But maybe it should.

Then perhaps maybe we should revoke the 14th amendment, because that's the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to require preclearance against whichever states that it determines needs it.

edit: 14th and 15th amendments...
: July 10, 2013, 05:18:54 PM CBWx2


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#84 : July 10, 2013, 05:12:26 PM

CBW is just about politics. He is complaining about "judicial review" in the voting act case but not any of the other decisions (until I pointed that out to him)  including the affirmative action decision, which specifically relates to a change in conditions

By the way, anyone with half a brain and a willingness to read could see the flaw on CBW's " plucked from a liberal blog" argument that Congress isn't req'd by the Constitution argument ...hint: how is "race" treated under the law?

You don't have a point. You seldom do, which is why you constantly twist in the wind with nonsense like this ^^^.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#85 : July 10, 2013, 05:35:58 PM

CBW is just about politics. He is complaining about "judicial review" in the voting act case but not any of the other decisions (until I pointed that out to him)  including the affirmative action decision, which specifically relates to a change in conditions

By the way, anyone with half a brain and a willingness to read could see the flaw on CBW's " plucked from a liberal blog" argument that Congress isn't req'd by the Constitution argument ...hint: how is "race" treated under the law?

You don't have a point. You seldom do, which is why you constantly twist in the wind with nonsense like this ^^^.

My point is that you don't actually understand what your talking about, you're just cutting and pasting a talking point ... And a silly one at that

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#86 : July 10, 2013, 05:47:00 PM

I love how people act as though they have won an argument that they've never actually engaged in. Well Vince, how about this. Whatever point you are trying to make is wrong, and I've won the debate that we never had. So there. You say you've won, and I say I've won, and since we never actually debated, you can't prove that I didn't.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#87 : July 10, 2013, 06:13:59 PM

I love how people act as though they have won an argument that they've never actually engaged in. Well Vince, how about this. Whatever point you are trying to make is wrong, and I've won the debate that we never had. So there. You say you've won, and I say I've won, and since we never actually debated, you can't prove that I didn't.

You are the one thinking about winning and losing and calling posts a "debate."  I don't see it that way at all.  You cant have a debate with the Black Hole . .  you can waste a lot of time . .  but that is about it. .  this post is a great example, you've been arguing about judicial review but that is not even the real issue, the real issue is one of your liberal causes got knocked down .  . you dont like the result
: July 10, 2013, 06:16:29 PM VinBucFan

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#88 : July 10, 2013, 06:32:47 PM

I love how people act as though they have won an argument that they've never actually engaged in. Well Vince, how about this. Whatever point you are trying to make is wrong, and I've won the debate that we never had. So there. You say you've won, and I say I've won, and since we never actually debated, you can't prove that I didn't.

You are the one thinking about winning and losing and calling posts a "debate."  I don't see it that way at all.  You cant have a debate with the Black Hole . .  you can waste a lot of time . .  but that is about it. .  this post is a great example, you've been arguing about judicial review but that is not even the real issue, the real issue is one of your liberal causes got knocked down .  . you dont like the result

Vince, you didn't even make a good argument to refute my statements about judicial review, which is why you decided to make a switch to attacking me personally by levying your go-to "you're a partisan and I'm not" crap that you do in every single argument to avoid having to address actual data points in an argument.

What is it you like to say? If you have to attack the defendant's character, it's usually the sign of a weak case?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#89 : July 10, 2013, 06:38:48 PM

I love how people act as though they have won an argument that they've never actually engaged in. Well Vince, how about this. Whatever point you are trying to make is wrong, and I've won the debate that we never had. So there. You say you've won, and I say I've won, and since we never actually debated, you can't prove that I didn't.

You are the one thinking about winning and losing and calling posts a "debate."  I don't see it that way at all.  You cant have a debate with the Black Hole . .  you can waste a lot of time . .  but that is about it. .  this post is a great example, you've been arguing about judicial review but that is not even the real issue, the real issue is one of your liberal causes got knocked down .  . you dont like the result

Vince, you didn't even make a good argument to refute my statements about judicial review, which is why you decided to make a switch to attacking me personally by levying your go-to "you're a partisan and I'm not" crap that you do in every single argument to avoid having to address actual data points in an argument.

What is it you like to say? If you have to attack the defendant's character, it's usually the sign of a weak case?

silly.  let me send you off again with a very simple request, a chance for you to prove me wrong, to show me that you are NOT just upset with the result.  Are you ready?  Okay . . .  now . . .

go find me ANY OTHER SCOTUS RELATED THREAD . . . where you have in the past, before I mentioned it . . .  .even raised judicial review as an issue.

I posted that challenge a couple days ago I think . . .  and yet nothing from you . .  a guy who thinks posting is about "win" or "lose" in a "debate."  I gave you an easy chance to "win" a "debate" . . .  and yet nothing . . .

Go ahead . . . I am waiting . .
Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools