4th graders delcare they win too. It's about as impressive to me when folks here do it. Maybe it impresses others.
I've already impressed you with my knowledge of the Constitution. The "I win" statement is just icing on the cake If you've more arguments to bring the table then we can debate those.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. There you go. You may ignore half the amendment as "semantics," but in my opinion it was put there for a reason and is crucial for understanding what the 2A means. And so, when you march into court demanding you have a constitutional right to be armed with you Stinger missle and claiming the feds unconstitutionally threw you in jail for possessing it, the Supreme Court has to review and interpret the definitions of the constitution against the law under which you were jailed. It has to decide what "arms" mean, and possess means, and whether the right spelled out in the amendment was something created to arm a militia, or to provide arms for individuals without regard to whether there is a militia. It has to decide whether the language "shall not be infringed" means it is an absolute right, and whether Congress intended social undesirables like convicts, incompetents, and (back then) blacks should have this uninfringeable right. To decide that, the Supremes look at that language, which is often ambiguous and unclear in light of changing circumstances, as well as the intent of the folks who wrote the law. And in doing so, they often make decisions that will differ with your opinion or mine. And conservatives are "activist" just as much as liberals in this regard. The Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald are some of the most astounding examples of "judicial activism" and interpretation on record. So interpretation of the definitions in the Constitution is exactly what is required of the Supreme Court when it decides whether laws are unconsitutional. There is no other way the Court could do it.
In other words, if people don't agree with *your* interpretation of the Constitution, they "aren't for" the constitution. Because only you know what the Constitution means.
The are only irrelevant in the the sense that they have no direct influence on the workings of the state, just like everything else we do. They are not ethically irrelevant. I don't want anyone to have any political power. But my issue with "judicial review" is not that it grants the Supreme Court the power to overturn Congressional legislation. 99% of legislation is bad and unjust, so the more people with a veto power over it, the merrier. My problem is opposite: the idea that if the Supreme Court does not overturn the legislation, it's constitutional and the debate is over.
You have asked why I oppose judicial review under its current definition, and I told you. You are not reading what I'm writing. I agree the courts should be allowed to determine whether or not they considers legislation constitutional or not. The problem is the idea that it should be the final word on the subject. This has implications for such issues as state and jury nullification. You said you don't want Congress to have the final word on everything, and I agree. But by proposing that the courts should be the only monopolistic check (unless an amendment is passed--by Congress!), you effectively eliminate all other possible checks. The preferable method would be for the courts to determine whether they personally will treat the law as constitutional or not. If they don't, they simply won't enforce it, effectively nullifying it.
The Courts do not have final say. It can be overturned by the Congress through Amendments. This is part of our checks and balances.
Where did I ask you any such thing? OK, so you have no problem with the Supreme Court having the power to review laws, you're just (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about it for some reason you have not identified. Who says they have the final word on the subject? Where on earth did I propose any such thing? The Courts do not enforce the law, or play a very minor role in it. Are you saying they should?
That is right, or by the states through amendment, or by Congress changing the law depending on the circumstances.
There are no guarantees in this world except death and taxes. When you say "Barky" I'm assuming its slang for our President; if that's true and he loses the election, then so be it. Yes it would be disappointing but you know what? Well if he wins, we'll live with Romney for 4 years and start over again. As many conservatives in here are so fond of saying, Romney is nothing more then a RINO so that translates into mirror of Obama, so not much would change either way. But I think that President Obama has an excellent chance for re election and I intend to support him. At least I know what I'm dealing with. Read that over your dinner.
Romney will win and tow the party line. The economy will improve slightly and then comes Hillary in 2016 who will be unbeatable. If I were a democrat I would abandon Obama and wait for her.
Paul is out. That's not even debatable now. Ryan also would never side with Paul so that ticket is bogus.
Like I mentioned in an earlier post, we shall see. We've got 7 months until election and the mainstream media hasn't even started its attack on Romney. This will be one exciting summer for sure.
He said he wasn't. The constitution is to limit the government from taking rights from individuals. This country is supposed to be ran by the people, and rights be protected by law against being taken away by the constitution. If you want bigger federal government, you are NOT for the constitution because that is not what its intent was for.
If Ron Paul was a real conservative the people actually wanted he wouldn't have to play games with the delegate count to trick them into nominating him. Like the liberal he has such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.
You don't get guarantees in life. But I bet there is a better chance that Romney will be a capitalist then there is that Obama will be one.
The courts are presumed to have the final say on whether this or that law is constitutional under the Constitution as it stands.
The issue is whether or not their opinions should be presumed to be the final and absolute position on whether a law is constitution under the current Constitution. It appears you've decided to disengage with the debate and this point and lead us in circles with empty one-liners.
