[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’ ? Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Sep 5, 2015 Author: Gary Demar Post Date: 2015-09-05 12:43:51 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 2716 Comments: 41 godfatherpolitics.com Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson. . . Posted on September 2, 2015 by Gary DeMar Filed under 10th Amendment, 14th Amendment, Christianity, Homosexuality, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberal Bullying Share1.3K Tweet414 Share2.1K Email26 Did our founders, after drafting a Declaration of Independence, fighting a war with England, and then sitting down to pen a national governing document (the Constitution) put in that document the right of a majority of federal judges to make laws for the entire nation? Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis is testing the claim that five unelected Supreme Justices have the authority to overrule a state constitution that she took an oath to uphold and a federal Constitution that says nothing about same-sex marriage. Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had this to say on the issue in a Facebook post: “Inasmuch as SCOTUS so obviously overreached and acted as though it had the power to amend the Constitution (and certainly as legislators), Kim Davis should not comply. I disagree with my friends Maggie Gallagher, Rod Dreher, and Ryan Anderson on this one. The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day. Civil disobedience is commendable. The only problem with Kim Davis's position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.” The states have rolled over on the question of judicial supremacy, and Congress is too busy solidifying its power base to take on a nation-dividing fundamental issue. Governors don’t want to make waves and get involved in a protracted legal battle with the Federal government that has unlimited money to spend and ways to hold back federal funding (money it took from the states in taxes). Wouldn’t it be great if a dozen or so states banded together and said no to the usurpation of their states’ authority? As I've been reminded several times, since the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the land," the Tenth Amendment is part of the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to regulate marriage was not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. But back to the constitutional question about the Supreme Court being the final authority. Here’s what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the issue in a letter to William Charles Jarvis (28 September 1820). I chose Jefferson because he is a liberal and neo-conservative icon. _________________ You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem” [it is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. Jefferson_jarvis The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. … The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: tpaine (#0) Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’ ? Yes. The situation is similar to the despotic medical world wherein your doctor that is licensed to "practice" medicine on your open heart surgery. Since you agreed to the "practice," you are lucky to live. buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-05   12:54:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#0) “Inasmuch as SCOTUS so obviously overreached and acted as though it had the power to amend the Constitution (and certainly as legislators), Kim Davis should not comply. ------- The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day. Civil disobedience is commendable. The only problem with Kim Davis's position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.” Comments? tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   12:58:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: tpaine (#0) Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? It is. Frequently law is evil and must be broken. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   13:03:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Vicomte13 (#3) Frequently law is evil and must be broken. Not according to Trump; nope, the law is the law and must be followed. buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-05   13:05:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: buckeroo (#1) "Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’ ?" Yes. The situation is similar to the despotic medical world wherein your doctor that is licensed to "practice" medicine on your open heart surgery. Since you agreed to the "practice," you are lucky to live Your sarcasm is appreciated.. Thanks, --- and now let's see if some of our Scotus supporters have the guts to claim a court has the power to write 'law' that we MUST obey.. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   13:06:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#3) (Edited) Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? It is. Frequently law is evil and must be broken Our constitution is not evil, or broken, and does not need changing. Your opinions, on the other hand, ---- tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   13:10:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: tpaine (#0) Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? If you think it isn't. Good luck with your defiant arguments on your way to jail. rlk  posted on  2015-09-05   13:18:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Vicomte13 (#3) " Frequently law is evil and must be broken. " Interesting. I would not have expected that opinion coming from you. I agree BTW Si vis pacem, para bellum Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   13:19:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: rlk, Y'ALL (#7) Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? If you think it isn't. Good luck with your defiant arguments on your way to jail. And your comments fit right in with the neo-fascist view. Thanks.. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   13:23:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Stoner (#8) (Edited) Frequently law is evil and must be broken. " Interesting. I would not have expected that opinion coming from you. I agree BTW The only law that is really LAW is God's Law. All OTHER "law" is human law. Human law is merely the opinions of men, imposed by deadly force. Men who want to preserve their lives, liberty and property have to be careful around human law, just like you have to careful around a live alligator or electricity, but men owe no ALLEGIANCE, either mental or external, TO the human law. Human law is, by its nature, a usurpation, because it exceeds the Law, which comes from God alone. As such, men have the right to break it, and SHOULD ignore it, where they reasonably can, specifically in order to NOT serve it, for it has no true right to exist. It is imposed, and it is evil. Where the human law PARALLELS the divine Law, what gives the human law force is the fact that it is divine Law. The fact that some body of men or other enact it gives it no legitimacy - it is the fact that God made that Law that gives it legitimacy. That some men in a building have repeated the words of God is nice, but their repetition doesn't increase the force of the Law. It merely makes it easier for people who follow God to live in that country, because the country's "laws" parallel, in some cases, the real Law, which comes exclusively from God alone. That's the truth. It's a hard truth, and a subversive one. Men owe loyalty to God alone. Through God, men owe a duty of care to their families and their neighbors: THAT is part of The Law. However, God never granted men dominion over other men, and therefore men do not in fact HAVE dominion over other men. When they assert it by uniforms and guns, they are murderers or potential murderers. One has an obligation to always remember that: the state and its laws and force are usurpations of God. One may be forced, by practical realities, to pay taxes and obey state impositions due to the threat of death and loss, and the need to provide for one's family, but one must never mentally give assent, loyalty or a bent knee to anybody who imposes a law at gunpoint. It's always evil, and the minute that one can break free of it and end that authority, one should. You cannot serve both God and mammon. You can serve God and live. Or you can serve mammon and die. Mammon pays well on this side of the grey curtain of death. To understand how well God pays is to understand that when you see an orchard full of oranges, and you are hungry, you actually have a right, under The Law, to walk in and pick an orange and eat it, and you do not have to pay for it. That's God's and he gave it to you. That the human law says that that is theft merely demonstrates the extent to which men have violently stolen from you what is yours from God. And shows you how you should treat government: as a mob boss, an armed thief. Men should never take oaths at all - God said so. Certainly they should not be taking oaths to government. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   13:45:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#10) Thanks for your reply, expansive as it is. Which I have come to expect from you. As expansive as your replies usually are, you must either be a politician, or a lawyer, LOL, for you seem to be unable to give a short & simple reply! I enjoy them though. Si vis pacem, para bellum Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   14:07:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: tpaine (#6) Our constitution is not evil, or broken, and does not need changing. Our country was conceived in evil. It began as expeditions of conquest from England and Spain. English people and Spanish people never had any right to land on these shores by force and take this land by murder. The rest of the land was taken by Americans, by murder. The country has no right to exist - all of the land was taken by murder, and as such the country was conceived in murder a taint that can never be expunged. The origins of the nation in genocide render its existence illegitimate. The only way to atone for that evil is to properly treat the survivors who descend from the victims of that era. They are still here, we made treaties with them - and our Constitution stays that those treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. but we do not respect the treaties, because they would require is to pay over a LOT of money to those people,. such that they would all cease to be poor and would in fact join the upper class. Those treaties are constitutionally binding, but we don't follow them because the same greed that made our ancestors genocidal criminals makes us, as a nation, continue to be lawless thieves. We have no right to rule this land, because we killed to get it, or negotiated treaties but then did not pay what we negotiated. We murdered and stole the land. The only way to get title to the parts we bought is to pay the money in full. But Americans as a people are lying swindling cheats, and always have been. That is why when faced with the obligation to pay, under the treaties, which are constitutionally binding, all of a sudden Americans en masse become non-constitutionalists, argue for exigencies, shuck and jive like the thief nation our ancestors build and that we still are. Half the nation is too hot for white people to work well. So we enslaved Africa and brought it here. Not coincidentally, the half that stole labor and murdered millions to maintain its sway was the rich half - stolen labor will do that for you - and the half that held sway. The Constitution ratified slavery, protected it; fugitive slave laws were passed under the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. And Americans enforced those laws. The United States had no right to exist in the first place - stolen land, and the United States had no right to exist as long as there was slavery. AFTER slavery ended, in war, because the Constitution could not address the evil without allowing it to continue, THEN came murderous indian wars, more land stolen. Then came racial apartheid. Americans do not respect even the good parts of their Constitution. After World War II, apartheid was finally lifted - against the will of a third of the country. Then America plunged itself into imperial war. And then it discovered the murdering of babies was a constitutional right, and it murders the babies en masse. Still does. The country was evil from its founding. The Constitution enshrined and protected evil, and that evil was enforced, but it also promised to do the right things (e.g.: pay for land bought from Indians, and protect people) but Americans have never done the good things. The whole country is a disgrace. The great heroic moment, defeating Hitler? The only reason that happened is because Hitler declared war on the US and the Axis attacked the US. Americans were content to sit fat and rich on their stplen land, with their segregated blacks, while the Nazis devoured all of the free democracies of Europe, and do nothing. America never joined the war - she was dragged into it by the Axis. Which is why the USA was no more a hero of World War II than the USSR. The heroic nations were the ones that CHOSE to go to war against Hitler, to try to stop him. There were only two of those: the British Empire, and the French Empire. And the French lost. They lost, but at least they declared. The USSR won, but only because it was big. The Russians entered because the Nazis attacked them - an inevitability. And America is no different. There is no true goodness anywhere in the history of US government and war. It has always been evil, calculating and cruel. America is the empire of mammon. And yet, we COULD be good, if we repented, turned to God's law, and atoned for the sins of our nation: pay the Indians what they were owed; protect the babies: cease with the wars of interest aboard; stop fomanting violence; eliminate the police state; redistribute the wealth that has been concentrated through theft. To do all of those things, though, would require America turning to God. That has never happened from the beginning, and it does not seem to be on the cards now. So, a Christian remnant within needs to remain loyal to God, and understand that King Ahab's reign cannot last forever. This Gentile nation too shall pass, perhaps with the end of the world, perhaps sooner. It would be better for us to make it right, but the only way to do THAT is by strictly adhering to God's law, not the evil-from-the-beginning, dysfunctional, and largely ignored US Constitution. When the Constitution is largely ignored, the country is bad because of the inherent evils of the people. When the Constitution was followed, the country was bad because of the evil enshrined in the Constitution. Human idols will never give life, or peace, or happiness. You idol is a Constitution and a nation. It's a set of human ideas that never worked, that included much bad, and that is not enforced where it would be good. In short: a rag. The country was conceived in evil and remains evil. Serve it, and you unwittingly serve Satan. Better to simply tolerate it all as one of the evils that simply IS, and focus on the REAL Law, of God, and live that way, and please God. And find others doing the same. And build a private world with them. The empire of mammon will never avail you, in the end. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   14:10:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Stoner (#11) you seem to be unable to give a short & simple reply The only law is God's law. It is about 8%, by volume, of the text of Scripture, and it is repeated three or four times, so it amounts to about 40 pages of ideas, three quarters of which applied only to operating the state of Israel, which God removed. So there are ten pages of law to learn. That's the only law. Don't watch sports. Don't work out. Do no leisure activity until you've memorized the ten pages of the law. Then apply them. And reject everything that gets in the way of them. Which means rejecting much of your organized religious denomination's doctrine, and your country's claims, and the human law, and human norms, and the incessant self-interest demands of women, and following God's law. There. Short enough? Or still too long. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   14:13:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Vicomte13 (#13) " Short enough? Or still too long. " LOL, no, that is quite fine, but I think you do get my point, and I do get yours. LOL. Thanks again. Si vis pacem, para bellum Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   14:25:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Our constitution is not evil, or broken, and does not need changing. Our country was conceived in evil. From the rest of your rant, I can only conclude that while I live in the USA, -- You would prefer to live elsewhere. -- Thus, it is not 'our' country, as you don't even agree with its basic principles. Please, do yourself a favor, --- move somewhere else, and find somewhere else to post your agitprop... tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   14:34:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: tpaine (#15) (Edited) Our constitution is not evil, or broken, and does not need changing. There is a loop hole in the USC, so yes it does. "Congress shall create budgets that operate without debt." That way, the People can see their paychecks immediately go into SCAM operations. buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-05   14:38:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Stoner (#14) but I think you do get my point, and I do get yours. Reality is complex, and lies spawn on all surface area. To straighten out the kinks requires a lot of words. Example: the law is "Don't kill." Know what that means? It means "Don't kill." Good enough? Or will you have to have pages and pages of explanation as to why "Don't kill" really means that it's ok to kill? Because, you know, if you can't KILL, you can't build powerful countries. But actually, that's right: you can't build powerful countries. You can't build anything if it requires you to kill. I could summarize: God is. Serve him alone by following all of the law. Marry for life and have kids. Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't be sexually immoral. Don't amass wealth. You are your eighbor's keeper. Forgive everybody everything. Don't add any laws to this list. Don't take any laws to this list. That's not even ten pages. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   14:39:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: tpaine (#15) You would prefer to live elsewhere. Everywhere that man rules, is evil, because man rules it. Here is as good a place to live as anywhere. The whole world was made by God for me, and you. I've got the right to live anywhere in it. Men say I don't. They're evil for saying so and putting impediments in the way. They put the impediments in the way because they serve idols. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   14:41:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Vicomte13 (#17) " To straighten out the kinks requires a lot of words. " Like I said, spoken like A. a lawyer, or B. a politician, or C. a preacher. Three professions that are normally verbose. Not saying that is bad, just characteristic. ;) Si vis pacem, para bellum Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   15:03:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Vicomte13 (#18) Our country was conceived in evil. From the rest of your rant, I can only conclude that while I live in the USA, -- You would prefer to live elsewhere. -- Thus, it is not 'our' country, as you don't even agree with its basic principles. Please, do yourself a favor, --- move somewhere else, and find somewhere else to post your agitprop.. Everywhere that man rules, is evil, because man rules it. --- Here is as good a place to live as anywhere. You want to live here while posting agitprop against us. Now that's evil... The whole world was made by God for me, and you. -- I've got the right to live anywhere in it. YEP, that's one of our principles, you have both religious freedom and the right to express them. -- Within constitutional bounds. -- You're close to infringing on those bounds, imo. Men say I don't. They're evil for saying so and putting impediments in the way. They put the impediments in the way because they serve idols. Rant on.. Eventually your irrationality on this issue will get you beyond the bounds, and the forum will be rid of you. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   15:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: tpaine (#0) When you've lived in Latin America for a while, you come to realize that power and authority go hand in hand, regardless of any soft theories to the contrary. So if Ghangis Khan took over DC and laid down his law and everyone acquiesced, then it's the law of the land. Period. End of story. You take out Khan and then you get to say what the "law of the land" is. Far from being some ethereal substance making up the fabric of the universe, "law" is, in fact, a very arbitrary thing. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-09-05   15:16:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: tpaine (#0) Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? Yes, when interpreting the Constitution, as in Obergefell. Try passing a state law criminalizing abortion, wingnut opinions notwithstanding. Article 6, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is. Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000) But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997). nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-05   15:17:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: tpaine (#0) The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day. The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott was correct. Dred Scott was returned to the Chaffees as a slave. The lawyers are lucky they were not sanctioned. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-05   15:20:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Pinguinite (#21) When you've lived in Latin America for a while, you come to realize that power and authority go hand in hand, regardless of any soft theories to the contrary. Do you really think our Constitution is "soft theory"? -- Millions of US Citizens have sworn to support and defend it. When the SHTF, I think they would... So if Ghangis Khan took over DC and laid down his law and everyone acquiesced, then it's the law of the land. Period. End of story. -- You take out Khan and then you get to say what the "law of the land" is. We already have a document that says that. And millions would honor that document. Far from being some ethereal substance making up the fabric of the universe, "law" is, in fact, a very arbitrary thing. Maybe to you, but I'll stick to our constitutional principles. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   18:20:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: nolu chan (#22) (Edited) Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? Yes, when interpreting the Constitution, as in Obergefell. Not true. Both States and officials of every branch at any level of govt have the power to reject SCOTUS opinions, at their own peril. Try passing a state law criminalizing abortion, wingnut opinions notwithstanding. The wingnuts that passed RvW made it clear in their opinion that killing a viable fetus could be prosecuted as murder. Two bits you cannot refute that fact.. Article 6, Clause 2: ------- This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in that Article gives the SCOTUS the power to make law. The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is. Not true. You cannot cite anything written in the Constitution that supports your opinion. Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000) ------- But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997). That quote is just another court opinion, and you know it... "The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day." The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott was correct. Dred Scott was returned to the Chaffees as a slave. The lawyers are lucky they were not sanctioned. And Dred Scott was probably the last slave returned under that opinion. Everyone else ignored it. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   18:38:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Stoner (#19) Like I said, spoken like A. a lawyer, or B. a politician, or C. a preacher. Three professions that are normally verbose. Not saying that is bad, just characteristic. ;) I'm a preachy lawyer who talks about politics. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   21:11:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Pinguinite (#21) Far from being some ethereal substance making up the fabric of the universe, "law" is, in fact, a very arbitrary thing. Indeed. Law is never anything more than the opinion of the lawmaker. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   21:13:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: Vicomte13 (#26) " I'm a preachy lawyer " LOL, makes perfect sense. My instincts were correct. Just curious, where did you get your JD? Si vis pacem, para bellum Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   21:32:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: Stoner (#28) Just curious, where did you get your JD? My French JD is from the Sorbonne (Paris I). My American JD is from Columbia. Ny degree in BS is from Annapolis. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   21:40:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Vicomte13, stoner, y'all... (#29) Stoner (#28) ---- Just curious, where did you get your JD? My French JD is from the Sorbonne (Paris I). My American JD is from Columbia. Ny degree in BS is from Annapolis I'm getting a feeling of goat ranch deja vu. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   22:05:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#30) " My French JD is from the Sorbonne (Paris I). My American JD is from Columbia. Ny degree in BS is from Annapolis. " That is a lot of time as a student. I am impressed! Si vis pacem, para bellum Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   22:14:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Stoner, Y'ALL (#31) That is a lot of time as a student. I am impressed! Me too. All of us here LF should feel honored that a man of such accomplishments is giving us his time and sharing his political wisdom. Why, given a few more years, we all might be converted to the view that the USA is evil. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   23:02:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: tpaine (#25) And Dred Scott was probably the last slave returned under that opinion. Everyone else ignored it. You obviously have not read the opinions in Scott v. Sandford, and have no clue what the opinion of the court was. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   12:43:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: tpaine (#25) The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is. Not true. You cannot cite anything written in the Constitution that supports your opinion. Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000) ------- But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997). That quote is just another court opinion, and you know it... Dickerson and Boerne and host of others are binding Supreme Court opinions and you know it. Your ostrich approach to Supreme Court opinions make them no less binding. SCOTUS did its job and said what the law is. The Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, even the imaginary laws of tpaine nothwithstanding. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   13:24:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: nolu chan (#34) Nolu opines : --- Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is Not true. You cannot cite anything written in the Constitution that supports your opinion. Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000) ------- But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997). That quote is just another court opinion, and you know it... Dickerson and Boerne and host of others are binding Supreme Court opinions and you know it. "Opinions" are not "binding" in normal legal English usage. You're making up your own usage. -- And you know it.. Your ostrich approach to Supreme Court opinions make them no less binding. SCOTUS did its job and said what the law is. SCOTUS did its job and gave us their opinion. It is NOT BINDING, and nothing in the Constitution says it is. The Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Yep, laws made in "pursuance thereof". ----- That's our issue here, whether the laws were made in "pursuance thereof", -- and, -- whether the SCOTUS opinions about those laws are thus binding. Many constitutional scholars disagree with your take. Face that fact. The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, even the imaginary laws of tpaine nothwithstanding. The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, the imaginary opinions of nolu chan nothwithstanding. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-08   19:49:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: tpaine (#35) SCOTUS did its job and gave us their opinion. It is NOT BINDING, and nothing in the Constitution says it is. Only in the vivid imagination of tpaine. A lawyer making that argument to a court invites Rule 11 sanctions and action from the State Bar. For your extra-special enjoyment, the ORDER in the case of Dred Scott. Missouri, C.C.U.S. No. 7 Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er. vs. John F.A. Sandford Filed 30th December 1854. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. March 6th, 1857. — - - - - - - - - - - No. 7 Ptff. in Er. Dred Scott vs. John F.A. Sandford In error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court. — Ch. Jus. Taney 6th March 1857 nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   20:24:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Vicomte13 (#17) "Or will you have to have pages and pages of explanation as to why "Don't kill" really means that it's ok to kill?" I don't know. How many pages was Roe v Wade? That's where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "Don't kill" really means that it's ok to kill a baby as long as it's still in the mother's womb. misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-08   20:54:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#36) SCOTUS did its job and gave us their opinion. It is NOT BINDING, and nothing in the Constitution says it is. The Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Yep, laws made in "pursuance thereof". ----- That's our issue here, whether the laws were made in "pursuance thereof", -- and, -- whether the SCOTUS opinions about those laws are thus binding. Many constitutional scholars disagree with your take. Face that fact. The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, even the imaginary laws of tpaine nothwithstanding. The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, the imaginary opinions of nolu chan nothwithstanding. Only in the vivid imagination of tpaine. A lawyer making that argument to a court invites Rule 11 sanctions and action from the State Bar. So you imagine. -- You've admitted your not a lawyer, so anyone reading your opinions about these issues should bear that in mind. tpaine  posted on  2015-09-08   21:14:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: tpaine (#38) You've admitted your not a lawyer, so anyone reading your opinions about these issues should bear that in mind. Your memory must be better than mine. Please provide a link. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   23:56:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: tpaine (#38) SCOTUS did its job and gave us their opinion. It is NOT BINDING, and nothing in the Constitution says it is. Only from the tpaine court of the imagination. A common law legal system without binding precedent -- what a concept. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-09   0:01:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (41 - 41) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com