Reply With Quote
According to you this is a cons utional republic yet if we followed your reasoning then we could forget about that.
The cons ution definitely implies judicial review.
You are extremely limited in your perspective on the world.
As I said, an invention of the Supreme Court not a Cons utional provision.
Not me...you must be thinking of someone else. I've never even claimed to have set foot on Berkley's campus.
How 'bout I don't.
According to you this is a cons utional republic yet if we followed your reasoning then we could forget about that.
The cons ution definitely implies judicial review.
Oh I'd say I have a decent view of this here world. Be sure to kiss your imaginary son goodnight.
It's definitely implied in the cons ution. I'm not sure I'd like to live without some judicial check on acts of Congress.As I said, an invention of the Supreme Court not a Cons utional provision.
Heehee. Liar.Not me...you must be thinking of someone else. I've never even claimed to have set foot on Berkley's campus.
Then don't whine about "personal attacks"...How 'bout I don't.
First of all, I've never said the term "cons utional republic." We're a republic of states with a cons ution that binds us together.
Secondly, support your argument that my reasoning is the road to anarchy or whatever it is you're implying.
Okay, where?
Okay.
Again, where? And, no one is saying the checks and balances of the Cons ution were ignored. There's a process for doing so. An person, with standing, can bring suit to challenge the cons utionality of the law. That right has not been abridged by this legislation.
Generally, it's customary to provide evidence of lying when accusing a person of being a liar. When did I ever say I a) attended Berkley or b) only stepped foot on the campus -- by the way, I've never done either and I've never claimed either.
I do think I drove by Berkley once...driving from Sacramento to Saucalito.
I wasn't whining. I was merely noting your resort to personal attacks when you've apparently no response. Something that is endemic to this board. Have at it...personal attacks don't mean much coming from complete strangers with small brains.
Article 3, dawg
As opposed to your use of personal attacks which occur when you've apparently no response.I wasn't whining. I was merely noting your resort to personal attacks when you've apparently no response.
Wow. Another personal attack.Something that is endemic to this board. Have at it...personal attacks don't mean much coming from complete strangers with small brains.
Duh. Where in Article 3 (for the uninitiated, Article 3 establishes the Judiciary).
Never said I wasn't guilty, just that it goes on. However, I generally respond AND throw out a personal attack when I do it.
No, a generalization. Now, if I had said you were a perfect stranger (true) that had a small brain (probably true) then you could have said it was a personal attack.
Section 2.
Okay, two words, in Section two need to be added to your vocabulary.
#1: The word cases.
#2: The word arising.
Yeah so judicial review actually does exist in them thar Cons ution. Go figure.
No. But, please explain.
It's fairly self explanatory, which is why this was settled a couple hundred years ago.
i think you mean Marbury, as in the basketball player, not Marlboro the cigarettesMarlborough vs. Madison
Pretty ing hilarious for someone who lays claim to being a cons utional expert here on the internets.
No, it's not. Greater judicial minds than the two having this discussion still disagree over the cons utionality of "judicial review" established by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 -- after the ratification of the U.S. Cons ution, by the way.
The debate rages. If you want to join a discussion on the matter, I believe you should at least forward an argument as to why you think Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Cons ution, grants the U.S. Supreme Court the authority to invalidate the acts of another branch of Government.
It's a simple request. And, telling me to read Article III, Section 2 and draw my own conclusions because, as you say, it is "self explanatory," won't cut it. I read that and do not see judicial review...nor did James Madison whom, you may recall was one of the framers of the Cons ution...and a party to the "case," (<< There's that big new vocabulary word you learned today) as Secretary of State, on which Marshall claimed the right to judicial review by fiat.
I'm going out of my way to demonstrate there is a reasonable opposition to your view. And, in doing so, we've gotten far away from the original question of whether or not the law is cons utional -- a matter that can only be settled in court not by public opinion -- and entered the realm of the cons utionality of judicial review...which, I will not argue exists, but has a poorer chance of receiving cons utional scrutiny than any law Congress could pass.
Think about it. Then, how 'bout arguing your position instead of just haranguing the posters. Because, many more exchanges like the ones we've had and you join my ignore bin...along with Nbadan and violentkitten.
Okay, again with your absolute characterizations. When did I claim to be an expert? And, what's funny about what I said?
Pretty ing hilarious for someone who lays claim to being a cons utional expert here on the internets.
You're right, it was from memory.
You apparently have no problem dismissing other poster's knowledge in regards to cons utional law so I would think that you would have no problem having yours challenged.
Look, I know of at least one attorney who posts here perhaps he'll let you know where the issue of judicial review stands at this point.
But I know, it hasn't been settled in your alternate universe, the one in which the famous case of "Marlborough v Madison" failed to adequately address it
I haven't seen any expertise and I have no problem being challenged...I've responded to your challenges.
Okie dokie, I'm all atwitter. (I just hope it's not Nbadan or violent kitten because, I'll never see the post.)
You're the only one to have claimed it was a "settled" matter. I clearly stated that reasonable people still, to this day, disagree over the matter of judicial review.
But, let's see what someone, of some import, had to say contemporaneously to the ruling:
Which, by the way, it is less known by the term "judicial review," these days; and more referred to as "judicial activism."
Thomas Jefferson was right.
Again, to make such a claim you gotta bring something a bit more than 'I know you are but what am I?' Post your credentials.
Yeah, those in "militias" and what not.Okie dokie, I'm all atwitter. (I just hope it's not Nbadan or violent kitten because, I'll never see the post.)
You're the only one to have claimed it was a "settled" matter. I clearly stated that reasonable people still, to this day, disagree over the matter of judicial review.
But, let's see what someone, of some import, had to say contemporaneously to the ruling:
Which, by the way, it is less known by the term "judicial review," these days; and more referred to as "judicial activism."
Thomas Jefferson was right.
TJ lost that argument. Duh.
You should try a fresh right wing conspiracy nut argument, such as that the Fed is extracons utional, in private hands, and/or that it is a conspiracy of a bunch of 'international bankers' to control the nation's money supply.
Go blow yourself. I think you should post your I.Q. and a photo ID but, that doesn't mean you're going to. You know about as much about me, personally, as you're going to so, get over it.
Hey, disagree, agree, make fun, I don't care...as I've said before, the discussions I have on here are rarely for the benefit of the other party but for the casual reader to come in and maybe, just maybe, see a side of an issue they've yet to consider.
If I've learned one thing in my years of posting in forums, changing minds doesn't happen often...not even if you post your credentials.
By the way, what's your obsession with education?
Okay. Nice comeback.
The argument isn't "lost" until judicial review is granted to the Judiciary by Cons utional Amendment. Until then, it's still ripe for argument and change.
Actually, my argument is the Libertarian view. Most Conservatives are for Judicial Review except when it comes to the judicial activism of left-wing whackos like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
What's yours? Every ing thread has you ripping everyone else in sight for a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand.
'tis rather appropriate given that those are your fellow travelers in this argument.Okay. Nice comeback.
The argument isn't "lost" until judicial review is granted to the Judiciary by Cons utional Amendment. Until then, it's still ripe for argument and change.
Actually, my argument is the Libertarian view. Most Conservatives are for Judicial Review except when it comes to the judicial activism of left-wing whackos like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
Even those left wing wackos like Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are down with it being settled.
Just so you know, SPARKY. I've deemed you a troll spoiling for an argument and have placed you on ignore.
Answer if you like but, I won't be reading your vomit anymore.
Well, whatta ya know, I have the credentials to ignore your ass...
Walk on home, boy.
Maybe both of you should read Mark Levin's new book, "Men in Black." It's about how the Supreme Court is ruining America and I believe he specifically talks about "Marbury vs. Madison."
I haven't read the book, but I plan to soon. Anyway, Levin has thoroughly researched this issue and is quite knowledgeable about the subject. I expect we could all learn something.
Oh, by the way, in my opinion Yonivore got in more hits than Sparky!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
