[excon]

If you are going to have a constitution then you need someone to rule on constitutionality.

Hello again,

DUH!!

And, if you don't, I have NO DOUBT that South Carolina would ENSLAVE its citizens. For SOME yet UNEXPLAINED reason, tom believes the VOTERS would NEVER pass unconstitutional laws. And, if they did, then it's up to THEM to reverse it, as though they would... And, I don't think they would.

Nahhh... That idea would make the a mockery of the Constitution.

Excon

[tomder55]

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
Jefferson

[talaniman]

Stop making excuses for congressional inaction. And be realistic about the speed of the process and the crap that politics throws in the game as we grapple with the reality of what's fair, and effective.

[tomder55]

If you agree that SCOTUS sometimes rules things are constitutional that you know is not ;and sometimes rules things unconstitutional that you know are... then all your claims that themselves imposed power of judicial review are debunked . The fact that they are an unelected for life institution puts an exclamation point on it .
Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

[excon]

Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

I DON'T disagree with you. And, I'll jump over to your side if you can explain to me how the citizens of South Carolina will be protected from an unconstitutional law, IF it's up to the citizens of South Carolina to RECOGNIZE that they passed one.

Excon

[talaniman]

If you agree that SCOTUS sometimes rules things are constitutional that you know is not ;and sometimes rules things unconstitutional that you know are .....then all your claims that their self imposed power of judicial review are debunked . The fact that they are an unelected for life institution puts an exclamation point on it .
Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

I think it's more how that intent is interpreted and the real life effects on people that you have a problem with because any system of governance by any nation has to be tweaked to be effective and reflect the changing reality.

As for the court being unelected that's a good intent for taking politics out of it even though the prez nominates, the congress has to approve. Indeed the very process of going through lower courts before it gets to SCOTUS, is part of a greater process.

I will submit the only ones trying to glean the intent of the founders is stuck in the past. They too had opinions, but the intent was to clearly establish a process for civilized resolution of conflicts that was fair and open.

Checks, and balances.

[tomder55]

Tal how can you talk checks and balance when there is none from the arbitrary dictates of SCOTUS ? One of their decisions led directly to a Civil War (Dred Scott ) ;and many others like Roe v Wade has torn apart any hope of compromise in our political process.

[tomder55]

I DON'T disagree with you. And, I'll jump over to your side if you can explain to me how the citizens of South Carolina will be protected from an unconstitutional law, IF it's up to the citizens of South Carolina to RECOGNIZE that they passed one.

excon

I know I'll never convince you . I think you should watch this Thom Hartmann video. Makes no difference to me that he makes this argument from the lefty perspective. I can just as easily find conservatives who make the same case .

Thom Hartmann: The story of the 5 Kings who rule America - YouTube

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

TRY to convince me. I'm not good at lofty ideals, but I DO know how stuff works on the ground... Please tell me HOW the citizens of South Carolina will be protected.. That's all I want to know.. I CAN be convinced...

Why?? Because one of my favorite liberals has LONG supported your position, but he's NEVER answered this question. I listen to Thom as MUCH as I can.

excon

[tomder55]

Your take on South Carolina is obsolete. But that is besides the point .If there is one thing U.S. history teaches us about the courts, it is that we can't always rely on them to be a bulwark for Constitutional liberty . The Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ignored the protection of life outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment instead choosing to rely on it's own judicial review. Judicial review has elevated the Court's “opinions” to Constitutional law, and that may be the most dangerous legacy of judicial review over the long run.

So I ask you instead ;how can we grant absolute judicial review to SCOTUS (as they have seized for themselves ) and be assured that they will always reach the correct constitutional decision.. since it is you who are in favor of their absolute power over the laws of the land .

[cdad]

Hello again, tom:

TRY to convince me. I'm not good at lofty ideals, but I DO know how stuff works on the ground... Please tell me HOW the citizens of South Carolina will be protected.. That's all I wanna know.. I CAN be convinced...

Why??? Because one of my favorite liberals has LONG supported your position, but he's NEVER answered this question. I listen to Thom as MUCH as I can.

excon

Wouldn't it be the same way as it happened in California? The people spoke. Then those that objected took it to the courts. What that did was raise it to the publics attention. From there due process was sought. It is still in question as to what if anything has been violated. California is a state that allows for a referendom process to take place and for the peoples vote to be heard.

[excon]

Hello again, dad:

California is a state that allows for a referendom process to take place and for the peoples vote to be heard.

Got it. Just tell me how the citizens of California would be protected if the people voted, say, to put a fence around the Castro district.

Look.. I can be as silly as I want about what the people might vote for. I just want to KNOW what remedy ANYONE would have in California IF the voters voted for a clearly unconstitutional law.

If you tell me it's another VOTE, I'll tell you that another vote is NOT going to happen, and somebody's constitutional rights are going to be violated. Who knows? The people might vote to OUTLAW all the guns in the state - every last one of them... Wouldn't YOU like a remedy to an unconstitutional law like that?? What might that remedy BE?

Excon

[tomder55]

By the same token ,there is no protection for the people of California now when the US Congress or the President make unconstitutional decisions against the State. There is NO system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I'm waiting... It's a simple question. Are you avoiding it because there IS no answer?? That the Constitution IS what the voters SAY it is??

I wouldn't want to live in that country. You make fun of me, but if that's the way it was here, I TRULY believe that the south would vote to once again enslave their fellow citizens.

excon

[tomder55]

I wouldn't want to live in that country. You make fun of me, but if that's the way it was here, I TRULY believe that the south would vote to once again enslave their fellow citizens.

Umm for one thing there is this thing called the 'supremacy clause . There is also the 14th amendment that prevents it . Now the court can make all the decisions it wants to but it can't enforce it . It takes executive action to enforce the laws and the constitution. As you know ,since the time of Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion ,the Presidency has not been shy to use force to enforce the national law.

Edit... I of course meant the 13th amendment

[talaniman]

by the same token ,there is no protection for the people of California now when the US Congress or the President make unconstitutional decisions against the State. There is NO system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

It's the UNITED STATES, not the INDIVIDUAL states. ONE nation under GOD, with liberty and justice for all, whatever your opinion of GOD is.

The law is for all, our founding fathers said so. Now pass the joint, you don't have to took on it, but at least get out of the way so the next guy can take a drag, or two.

You don't get to holler about your rights, and ignore mine. I won't let you. Oh I left out "indivisible" from the quoting of the pledge of allegiance because we seem to be divided about it at the moment, but it's there.

[tomder55]

Its the UNITED STATES, not the INDIVIDUAL states. ONE nation under GOD, with liberty and justice for all, whatever your opinion of GOD is.

The law is for all, our founding fathers said so. Now pass the joint, you don't have to toke on it, but at least get out of the way so the next guy can take a drag, or two.

You don't get to holler about your rights, and ignore mine. I won't let you. Oh I left out "indivisible" from the quoting of the pledge of allegiance because we seem to be divided about it at the moment, but it's there.

So you don't believe in the bill of rights ;specifically the 10th amendment . I'll say it again.. you are not comfortable with the concept of constitutional law as has been ratified in this country . You would prefer a strict democracy over a Republic.

[talaniman]

Equality under either is what I am comfortable with, so your opinion is no less, or more, valid as mine.

I have been arguing and debating with conservatives a long time and I am cool with that too. I mean why get upset over pop, and soda water? We can share the danged thing can't we?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

the court can make all the decisions it wants to but it can't enforce it . It takes executive action to enforce the laws and the constitution.

So, the president decides what's Constitutional? Or the local appellate court? What about the citizens?

Are you talking about the governor?

Excon

[talaniman]

Hello again, tom:
So, the president decides what's Constitutional? Or the local appellate court? What about the citizens?

excon

Scroll down to the Smack Board why don'tcha.