Trump from the debate: “I know more about wind than you do.”
No truer words have ever been spoken by Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
Trump from the debate: “I know more about wind than you do.”
No truer words have ever been spoken by Trump.
Now, you're gonna cause me to spend time researching Constitutional history and law...Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I am reading a wonderful three-volume set on the life of Napoleon. And usually spend my reading time on that. BTW, when he was just 16 and a lieutenant in the French revolutionary army, he was heading back to the barracks on a cold, rainy night and saw a woman on the street corner "plying her trade." After a brief conversation he learned she was only doing this to feed her family. He got them a hotel room, bought dinner, and spent the evening just talking with her. She was 21 and the oldest sibling. He paid her equal to a full night's "work" and sent her on her way the next morning. Years later, when he was Emperor, in 1814, and things were looking very bleak as the allies were invading France, a woman appeared at his headquarters with a dish of Chicken Marengo (a dish named for him). He recognized her and she merely said, "Merci." He knew what she meant.
Good story.
This is why people are upset about voter fraud and with mail in ballots..
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ts-signatures/
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court on Friday prohibited counties from rejecting ballots if the voter’s signature doesn’t match the signature on their voter registration.
What could possibly go wrong with this??
Signatures never match. It's lie to say they do. In fact, matching signatures are an indicator of potential fraud.
They can only be similar, and even that is not a guarantee.
Oh, and the only real way to signatures can match is if the signature was a stamp. But then you have to initial that or do some other secondary action.
I agree about them being similar.. But I could sign your name and it would pass. I think common sense went out the door on this one.
Trump knows more than Biden about air, soil, and whole bunch of other things. What's your point? And even if Biden ever knew it, he's forgotten it.
this anti-originalist stuff is too much to argue with because i don't check in often enough to keep up with the discussion, but let me just say i find the complaints weak.
for example, i'm pretty sure the brown vs. board of education decision hinged on the fact that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" which, it seems obvious, violates the actual text of the 14th amendment. it also seems obvious that states making laws abridging freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights would also run afoul of the 14th.
in that case all judges do not agree on the definition of the rule of law. if i make laws without the legal authority to do so, then the law is not king.
Pretty is a compliment. The rest seems odd.
Senatorette? Physicianette? Virologistette?Engineerette? Diplomatette? Vice Presidentette? Weird for this day and age, and a bit personal for me.
I agree, though, the moderator did a very good job. Way better than Matthews (but he probably got a tad blindsided by the ridiculousness)
Grab em by the vagina!
That is in fact how the SC ruled in those cases, but those were not originalist decisions.
The 14th amendment was not understood to prohibit segregation or apply the restrictions against congress in the bill of rights to the state AT THE TIME the 14th amendment was passed. Plessy was decided much earlier than Brown and it reflects the contemporary understanding of what the 14th amendment meant. It was a century later that the courts concluded that segregation can not be consistent with equal protection. In reality, there had been and continues to be an expansion of what we understand “equal protection” means under the 14th amendment.
The incorporation doctrine is also not explicit in the 14th amendment, nor was it clearly intended.
My point is “originalism” and “not legislating from the bench” are fallacies as absolute principles. Period. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, they actually are self contradictory, when applied absolutely, because the SC legislated from the bench to give itself the power of striking down laws on the basis of constitutionality in the first place.
Ever heard of common law? The form of law that exists in 49 of the US states? The entire premise of that body of law is that law is created by precedent.
This is the most interesting part of your comments, to me. Do you have any links that summarize the history of this, the date(s) it happened, etc...?
Admittedly, I am perplexed. On the one hand, I don't favor judges (justices) "making law from the bench." I think most intelligent/informed people support a "separation of powers" and recognize the function of the three branches of government. Yeah, it is true, liberals tend to lean on the judicial to change laws when they can't get the legislative bodies to do so. And, I think that is wrong. But, setting that aside...
The Constitution is the law of the land, we are a Republic, thankfully. There has to be an arbiter that will weigh legislative actions against the ultimate law, the Constitution, and the US Supreme Court is the most obvious body to do that. So, on the other hand...yeah, I lean to supporting the SC performing that task. Even if they violated that edict at some point granting themselves that power. It was like they...whoever the justices were who actually did it...recognized the need for it and took up the mantle. This casts me into the category of being hypocritical...well, yeah...but if this is allowed to be the only time in our history and the SC faithfully denies all other courts from legislating from the bench, then IMO it can be overlooked.
It is actually a very complex topic, but it centers around the history of Marbury vs. Madison.
My point is all of this has to be seen in the greater context of history, both preceding the Constitution (going back to the Magna Carta) and after the adoption of the Constitution. These evolutions in Constitutional law are things some take for granted, but most people appreciate that the evolution in the application of the 14th amendment have had profound positive impact on the United States, except for perhaps in the narrow case for how conservatives view Roe.
“Originalism” as an absolute principle is popular in conservative circles because (1) it is conceptually similar in some respects to biblical inerrancy, so it is a comfortable absolutist principle to apply, and (2) It is generally consistent with conservative goals of not seeing new equal protection rights created.
It is either deceitful of demonstrating a profound lack of self-awareness for a judge to promote themselves as an absolute originalist.
The counter view to the SC being the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality (the result of Marbury), is that all branches are equally bound and responsible for interpreting the constitution and holding the other branches to account. The result of the SC power grab in Marbury has undoubtedly been less focus by the executive and legislative branches in comporting their conduct with the constitution and relying on the SC to be the judge.
The Framers could have specified that the judicial branch be the ultimate determiner on the issue of constitutionality or even that they wanted the judicial branch to stop the common law tradition of creating law by judicial precedent and adopt originalism as the sole interpretative paradigm if they wanted. They didn’t.
As a history buff, the history of the Magna Carta, Marbury, and then cases developing the 14th amendment are fundamental to the rule of law and Constitutionality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
