You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.

Name ONE woman that is a professional heavyweight boxer.

But you are not ok with some faggot not being to do what some women do.

Which is.....?

Faggots are immoral not born that way. You're immoral too. That is a fact.

No,it's religious dogma,which is nothing more than historic superstition.

You're also a hypocrite and want special privileges for sex offenders.

Either name the special privileges or admit you are a liar.

Don't go making any pro faggot remarks. Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

The sooner you come out of the closet and admit you are bi-sexual or homosexual,the happier you will be. You may even be happy for the first time in your life. Assuming of course you are not one of those people who are never happy unless they are unhappy. Most of those people vote Dim,though.

BTW,it is you and Fire Island who are ALWAYS the ones that bring up the issue of homosexuality here,not me. You might want to spend a little time wondering why that is the case.

Are you pimping for your faggot friends again?

You can tell your pimp to not worry. Nobody is trying to take you away from him,Princess.

You best live by yourself in the woods like the kook Uni bomber.

So? Everyone knows how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. If you believe their word is the final word and that's the sum and substance of your argument, why are we even discussing the issue?

Because their opinion states what the law actually is and is enforceable, as distinguished from your misguided ruminations which are not the law and are not enforceable against anyone, no matter how much you insist on repeating your meaningless blather.

As you certify that you know that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent is, you have no valid excuse.

Back in 1907, before the 14th amendment was perverted by activist judges, the Bill of Rights first amendment did NOT apply to the states. Gasp!

Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed. It went into effect 38 years before 1907. The 1907 case was a 14th Amendment case. It did not set a first amendment precedent then, and it is uncitable for such purpose now.

IOW, you.

No, the dumb asshole who cited a 1907 14th Amendment case as a 21st century precedent on the First Amendment, after having the actual prevailing precedent cited and quoted.

Seems to me that you two clowns don't get it - flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech.

The world is coming to an end. Deckard and I are in perfect agreement.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (see #6) is a First Amendment case, directly on point about flag burning.

Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) (see #37) is not a First Amendment case and it is not on point about flag burning. It is a 14th Amendment case concerning commercial advertising on beer bottles.

Even if Halter could be magically construed to be a First Amendment case related to flag burning, it could still not be cited as precedent over the more recent case, Johnson. Halter is irrelevant to the discussion, as are the irrelevant pictures of beer cans.

JUSTICE SCALIA ON FLAG-BURNING

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/watch-antonin-scalia-flag-burning-donald-trump-video-justice-say-about-first-amendment-freedom-of-speech/

“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag,” Scalia told Piers Morgan in the above interview. “However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

“Burning the flag is a form of expression,” Scalia continued. He later added that burning a flag is an action that “expresses an idea.”

Scalia made similar comments over the years, referring to people who burn flags as “weirdos.”

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said at Princeton University in 2015.

In his tweet, Trump showed that he disagrees with that. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail,” Trump wrote.

Scalia, who died in February 2016, was on the U.S. Supreme Court when two cases centering on flag burning came up – Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990). In both cases, Scalia voted to protect flag burning as a form of protected free speech and agreed with the majority opinions written by William J. Brennan Jr. The 1989 case overturned a Texas state statue that banned the burning of the flag, while the 1990 case overturned the Flag Protection Act.

"flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech."

No one is saying they didn't. Where did you read that?

The argument is that SCOTUS is being selective and inconsistent. How can they ban hate speech but allow flag burning? How can they ban "fighting words" but allow flag burning? How can they ban behavior that incites violence but allow flag burning?

The FCC bans swear words over the air. Libel is banned. Slander is banned. Shouting "fire" in a theater is banned. There are plenty of examples of speech banned by the federal government.

In reality, you're supporting an exception.

"Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed."

Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

Freedom of speech wasn't "incorporated" until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York. Meaning neither the federal government nor the federal Bill of Rights had anything to do with that 1907 case.

But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

You're wasting your time. Shit-For-Brains hates the truth.

No one is saying they didn't. Where did you read that?

Good. Then we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, flag burning is protected free speech as determined and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

Freedom of speech wasn't "incorporated" until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York. Meaning neither the federal government nor the federal Bill of Rights had anything to do with that 1907 case.

Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

Whatever you say. But no matter how you disagree with the justices, their opinion is the one that counts, not yours.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (see #6) is a First Amendment case, directly on point about flag burning.

Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) (see #37) is not a First Amendment case and it is not on point about flag burning. It is a 14th Amendment case concerning commercial advertising on beer bottles.

Even if Halter could be magically construed to be a First Amendment case related to flag burning, it could still not be cited as precedent over the more recent case, Johnson. Halter is irrelevant to the discussion, as the irrelevant pictures of beer cans.

Resort to denigrating a Supreme Court decision as 5-4 (#101), as if that means anything, is fruitless. A 5-4 decision is just as enforceable as a 9-0 decision. Obergefell was 5-4 and it struck down every state law in the land prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Neither will resort to citing Gitlow (1925), or your perception of 14th Amendment perversion, change the prevailing binding precedent set by Johnson in 1989.

As Antonin Scalia, no perverter of the Constitution, said,

“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag,” Scalia told Piers Morgan in the above interview. “However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

So, stop running about espousing the ideas of tyrants. Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia, and reject tyranny.

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said at Princeton University in 2015.

Give up trying to be king. Americans do not want a king.

Scalia, who died in February 2016, was on the U.S. Supreme Court when two cases centering on flag burning came up – Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990). In both cases, Scalia voted to protect flag burning as a form of protected free speech and agreed with the majority opinions written by William J. Brennan Jr.

Flag burning is a form of protected free speech. Work yourself through the seven stages of grief. You seem to be stuck on denial and anger.

• Shock or Disbelief
• Denial
• Anger
• Bargaining
• Guilt
• Depression
• Acceptance and Hope

"Good. Then we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, flag burning is protected free speech as determined and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Yep. And we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, asset forfeiture is legal, school prayer is not allowed, gay marriage is legal, gays in the military is allowed, discrimination against gays is illegal (despite religious views), nativity scenes on public lands are illegal, hate crimes (charged against whites) are legal, reverse discrimination is legal at universities, diversity targets (quotas) are legal, voluntary black segregation (at universities) is legal ... well, you get the idea.

Since these are all legal, there's no point in discussing them, right?

"Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia"

He's dead. And he's wrong. He's dead wrong.

The court could rule tomorrow that flag burning is hate speech or 'fighting words' or incites violence.

If every time someone burned a flag they got the shit kicked out of them and sent to the hospital, the court would rule that way in a hurry. Is that what you want?

Yep. And we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, asset forfeiture is legal, school prayer is not allowed, gay marriage is legal, gays in the military is allowed, discrimination against gays is illegal (despite religious views), nativity scenes on public lands are illegal, hate crimes (charged against whites) are legal, reverse discrimination is legal at universities, diversity targets (quotas) are legal, voluntary black segregation (at universities) is legal ... well, you get the idea.

Since these are all legal, there's no point in discussing them, right?

The point of such discussion is that you disagree with the law as it is. That does not change the law. Whether one agrees with it or not, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, same-sex marriage is legal... well, you get the idea.

He's dead. And he's wrong. He's dead wrong.

The court could rule tomorrow that flag burning is hate speech or 'fighting words' or incites violence.

The court could rule tomorrow that they got it wrong in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education and bring back segregation.

One can posit that the court could rule any dumb thing one can imagine. If you entertain a good faith belief that the court will rule that flag burning is hate speech or "fighting words," or incites violence, or is an illegal act, I strongly support a course of therapy.

You are fully entitled to your opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong on just about everything. Their opinion is the law, and yours and mine are not.

Check case law. When your old lady calls 911... the Po Po is coming and entering... and if you don't like that, train your varmint family to not call for help. No search warrant needed.

You best live by yourself in the woods like the kook Uni bomber.

No one would dare call the useless 9-1-1 for any type of help from a fascist government. What are you crazy with silly assumptions?

No one would dare call the useless 9-1-1 for any type of help from a fascist government. What are you crazy with silly assumptions?

9-1-1 doesn't get any calls. Who knew?

"If you entertain a good faith belief that the court will rule that flag burning is hate speech or "fighting words," or incites violence, or is an illegal act"

My point is that there is no "constitutional crisis" created by making flag burning illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court simply declares that behavior to be hate speech or "fighting words," or that it incites violence, or is an illegal act.

Done.

My point is that there is no "constitutional crisis" created by making flag burning illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court simply declares that behavior to be hate speech or "fighting words," or that it incites violence, or is an illegal act.

Done.

And that is still as ridiculous a presumption as the Court ruling that Brown was wrong and separate but equal was decided correctly in Plessy. Tell me you really have a good faith belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn Johnson.

Not too long ago there was a proposed constitutional amendment that cleared the House but not the Senate. If it is to change any time soon, it will be by an amendment.

PROPOSED FLAG DESCECRATION AMENDMENT

An amendment proposal almost made it to the states in 2005.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10

H.J.Res.10 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

109th Congress (2005-2006)

Sponsor: Rep. Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [R-CA-50] (Introduced 01/25/2005)

Committees: House - Judiciary

Committee Reports: H. Rept. 109-131

Latest Action: 06/22/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D

06/22/2005-2:38pm
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 286 - 130 (Roll no. 296). (text: CR H4904)
Action By: House of Representatives

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/12

S.J.Res.12 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

109th Congress (2005-2006)

Sponsor: Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] (Introduced 04/14/2005)

Committees: Senate - Judiciary

Latest Action: 06/27/2006 Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 66 - 34. Record Vote Number: 189.

"Tell me you really have a good faith belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn Johnson."

Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."

If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to define flag burning as "hate speech", "fighting words" or an incitement to imminent violence, then Congress should act, leaving the decision to the states. I think everyone has had enough of this f**king judicial oligarchy.

Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."

And you could hold your breath until you turn blue.

The Executive and Legislature cannot overturn a SCOTUS decision interpreting the Constitution. Continuing the argument to its logical conclusion, the Executive could use the army to imprison the judges and legislatures, and the President could proclaim himself King.

In theory, the Congress could totally defund the Executive and Judicial branches by doing nothing.

Before the Executive and Legislative engage in nonsense, they could initiate an amendment and give it to the states for ratification. There is a reasonable chance that 3/4ths of the states would ratify it.

"And you could hold your breath until you turn blue."

No. I said they could threaten to eliminate judicial review in the hope that the U.S.Supreme Court would come to it's senses.

Only if the U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize the will of the people would Congress act.

Time to end the judicial oligarchy and get back to a government which reflects the will of the people.

With the U.S. Supreme Court always having the final word, that kind of negates the Founder's intent of three co-equal branches of government.

Time to end the judicial oligarchy and get back to a government which reflects the will of the people.

I agree that the Supreme court was never given the power it has usurped.

Question though. What happens when courts disagree?

I guess we will never have a perfect system.

In the 90's the Ohio Supreme court ruled that the schools in Ohio are unconstitutionally funded. Today we have the same system.

So maybe there is a way to ignore the Supreme court and some of its dumb decisions.

"Question though. What happens when courts disagree?"

You mean when lower federal appellate courts disagree? Right now the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter and their decision applies to every state and every citizen.

But if Congress decides that an issue is too divisive (abortion, gay marriage, "Under God", school prayer, flag burning, whatever), they could eliminate the judicial review of the U.S. Supreme Court and leave those decisions to the Regional federal courts. Or, eliminate the judicial review of all federal courts and leave the decision with each state Supreme Court.

Now that may sound hodge-podge and arbitrary, but keep in mind that's the way it was for 200 years until the U.S. Supreme Court started incorporating the federal BOR and extending those rights to the states. Each state had it's own BOR and the state Supreme Court interpreted those rights for that state.

Maybe along the lines of an MOU model.

"In the 90's the Ohio Supreme court ruled that the schools in Ohio are unconstitutionally funded. Today we have the same system."

Yes, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's current method of funding schools violated the Ohio Constitution, but it provided no real guidance on how to create a constitutional school-funding program.

Years passed and the Ohio Supreme Court eventually determined that the Ohio government had made a good- faith effort to change public school funding, and the justices overturned their earlier rulings.

Ohio got lucky. The Kansas Supreme Court ordered billions of dollars of additional taxpayer spending on schools. And they're still not happy.

"I have not forgotten that I am overdue on delivering a possible statutory solution."

Neither have I.

"For now, think structural rather than topic specific restrictions. Maybe along the lines of an MOU model."

Glad to. As long as I don't have to come up with your solution. But, short of an amendment, any solution could be negated by the next administration or the next Congress.

The ideal structural solution would be to repeal the 14th amendment which is being used by the U.S. Supreme Court as their authorization to interfere with state decisions.

No. I said they could threaten to eliminate judicial review in the hope that the U.S.Supreme Court would come to it's senses.

Only if the U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize the will of the people would Congress act.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a court of law. It is not there to "recognize the will of the people." It is there to interpret the law as it is, and render decisions in accordance with the law.

It is not there to stick a finger in the wind, or rule in accordance with the latest opinion poll. Congress can act to change the law via statute, or the Constitution can be amended pursuant to Article 5.

Threatening to eliminate judicial review would be threatening to overthrow the lawfully established form of government.

"It is not there to "recognize the will of the people. It is there to interpret the law as it is, and render decisions in accordance with the law."

The Roe v Wade decision was based on an "emanation from a penumbra" in response to the will of the people at the time. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which protects the right of mothers to kill their unborn children.

And that's one example of maybe 10 that come to mind.

"Threatening to eliminate judicial review would be threatening to overthrow the lawfully established form of government."

Baloney. Our lawfully established form of government allows the elimination of judicial review via the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

The Roe v Wade decision was based on an "emanation from a penumbra" in response to the will of the people at the time. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which protects the right of mothers to kill their unborn children.

Shit-For-Brains loves judicial legislation, almost as much as he hates original intent.

With the U.S. Supreme Court always having the final word, that kind of negates the Founder's intent of three co-equal branches of government.

Arguing from a false premise.

The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the law.

If it is a statute law, the legislature has the power to amend or repeal the statute.

The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution. Article 5 provides the means to amend or repeal a provision of the Constitution.

In the 90's the Ohio Supreme court ruled that the schools in Ohio are unconstitutionally funded. Today we have the same system.

So maybe there is a way to ignore the Supreme court and some of its dumb decisions.

The Ohio constitution of 1851 at Article 6, Section 2, provided:

Sec. 2. The general assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation or otherwise, as, with the interest arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the State; but no religious or other sect or sects shall ever have any exclusive right to or control of any part of the school funds of this State.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued four opinions on school system and funding from 1997 thru 2002, known as DeRolph I thru IV.

The problem is that feel-good bullshit was inserted into the state constitution. Consider if the Federal Constitution had said, "the Congress shall make such provisions as will secure a thorough and efficient system of health care throughout the nation." It sounds good, it would be the organic law of the land, but what the hell would it mean in a legal sense?

An Amendment could be made to the Federal constitution requiring the legislature to fully fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and whatever else one may choose to throw in there. And if the money does not exist, then what? On its face, the Ohio provision requires funding without regard to what funds are available, and to achieve an unclear result. The Court seems unable to define, in specific terms, what they require.

In DeRolph, the court took the case and then did not know what to do with it.

The Opinion of the Court is given below in full. In the dissenting opinion of MOYER, C.J., paragraphs 34 to 38:

{¶34} Unfortunately, the majority today issues an opinion that ignores as many questions as it decides. It thereby evades its fundamental responsibility to resolve a dispute it agreed five years ago to resolve and leaves the citizens of Ohio with a decision that can at best be described as ambiguous.

{¶35} As a result, it is virtually inconceivable that today’s judgment will, in fact, end litigation relative to the constitutionality of Ohio’s current schoolfunding system. The issues will almost certainly again come before this, or another, Ohio court. I write today in anticipation of that unfortunate eventuality. Specifically, I write to reiterate that I do not consider dicta contained in DeRolph v. State (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733 (“DeRolph I”), or DeRolph v. State (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1, 728 N.E.2d 993 (“DeRolph II”), to constitute the law of this case or controlling precedent.

{¶36} Unlike the majority, I do not believe the creation of a “complete systematic overhaul” to be the “core constitutional directive of DeRolph I,” majority opinion at ¶ 5, nor do I believe that the General Assembly is constitutionally required to make such an overhaul. See DeRolph III, 93 Ohio St.3d at 312, 754 N.E.2d 1184 (“It is the law contained in the syllabi to DeRolph I and DeRolph II and the principles established by court entry in the case at bar by which we are required to evaluate the constitutionality of the school-funding system now statutorily in place” [emphasis added]). Indeed, today’s majority opinion at ¶ 2 acknowledges that DeRolph I did “ ‘neither more nor less than the syllabus law sets forth,’ ” quoting DeRolph I, 78 Ohio St.3d at 262, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Pfeifer, J., concurring).

{¶37} The majority today vacates our decision in DeRolph III, replaces it with little more than a summary proclamation of a change of “collective mind,” declares the current school-funding system unconstitutional, and proclaims DeRolph I and II to be the law of the case. It thereby returns the parties (and all Ohio citizens) to the uncertain positions in which they stood two and one-half years ago on May 11, 2000, when DeRolph II was decided, with one exception: the majority fails to retain jurisdiction of the cause by the courts as it did after both DeRolph I and DeRolph II. In so doing, it implicitly declares this case concluded, yet does so without fully disposing of the issues that have developed during the litigation.

{¶38} The court in DeRolph I stayed the effect of its decision for 12 months and remanded the cause to the trial court, which was granted plenary jurisdiction to enforce that decision. Id., 78 Ohio St.3d at 213, 677 N.E.2d 733. Shortly thereafter, this court answered in the negative the trial court’s question whether the Supreme Court should “retain exclusive jurisdiction of the case to review all remedial legislation enacted.” DeRolph v. State (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 419, 678 N.E.2d 886.

In DeRolph IV below, the majority made believe they solved the problem by pronouncing at paragraph 5, "we direct the General Assembly to enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient, as explained in DeRolph I, DeRolph II, and the accompanying concurrences."

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/1997/1997-ohio-84.pdf

DeRolph I, 51 pp.

DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 1997

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2000/2000-ohio-437.pdf

DeRolph II, 82 pp.

DeRolph v. State, 89 Ohio St.3d 1, 2000-Ohio-437

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2001/2001-ohio-1343.pdf

DeRolph III, 108 pp.

DeRolph v. State, 93 Ohio St.3d 309, 2001-Ohio-1343

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2002/2002-ohio-6750.pdf

DeRolph IV, 25 pp.

DeRolph v. State, 97 Ohio St.3d 434, 2002-Ohio-6750

- - - - - - - - - -

DeRolph IV, Opinion of the Court (only)

DEROLPH ET AL., APPELLEES, v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS.

[Cite as DeRolph v. State, 97 Ohio St.3d 434, 2002-Ohio-6750.]

Constitutional law — Education — Schools — Current school-funding system unconstitutional —General Assembly directed to enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient.

(No. 1999-0570 — Submitted October 30, 2001 — Decided December 11, 2002.)

Common Pleas Court of Perry County, No. 22043.

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

__________________

PFEIFER, J.

{¶1} In DeRolph v. State (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 309, 310, 754 N.E.2d 1184 (“DeRolph III”), this court issued an opinion with which none of the majority was “completely comfortable.” As the author, Chief Justice Moyer, noted, we did so in an attempt to eliminate the “uncertainty and fractious debate” occasioned by our continued role in the case. Id. at 311, 754 N.E.2d 1184. A motion was filed asking this court to reconsider its decision. We granted that motion and ordered a settlement conference pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6)(A). DeRolph v. State (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 628, 758 N.E.2d 1113. Settlement efforts were unavailing, and we now rule on the merits of the case on reconsideration.

{¶2} In DeRolph v. State (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733, syllabus, (“DeRolph I”), this court stated, “Ohio’s elementary and secondary public school financing system violates Section 2, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution, which mandates a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.” In DeRolph I, this court admonished the General Assembly to create a new school-funding system, but otherwise provided no specific

- - - - - - - - - -

guidance as to how to enact a constitutional school-funding system. Id. at 213, 677 N.E.2d 733. See id. at 262, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Pfeifer, J., concurring) (the majority opinion “does neither more nor less than the syllabus law sets forth”).

{¶3} Three years later, after the General Assembly had enacted various changes to the school-funding system, this court again determined that the schoolfunding system was unconstitutional. DeRolph v. State (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1, 728 N.E.2d 993 (“DeRolph II”). We stated, “ ‘[T]he sovereign people made it mandatory upon the General Assembly to secure not merely a system of common schools,’ but rather a thorough and efficient system of common schools. Miller v. Korns (1923), 107 Ohio St. 287, 297-298, 140 N.E. 773, 776, approved and followed.” DeRolph II, paragraph one of the syllabus. As in DeRolph I, the majority did not provide specific guidance to the General Assembly as to how to enact a constitutional school-funding system. But, see, DeRolph II at 47, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Pfeifer, J., concurring). Some of us praised the efforts of the General Assembly, and that praise was deserved. Id. at 41, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Douglas, J., concurring).

{¶4} We are aware of the difficulties that the General Assembly must overcome, and that is why we have been patient. The consensus arrived at in DeRolph III was in many ways the result of impatience. We do not regret that decision, because it reflected a genuine effort by the majority to reach a solution to a troubling constitutional issue. However, upon being asked to reconsider that decision, we have changed our collective mind. Despite the many good aspects of DeRolph III, we now vacate it. Accordingly, DeRolph I and II are the law of the case, and the current school-funding system is unconstitutional.

{¶5} To date, the principal legislative response to DeRolph I and DeRolph II has been to increase funding, which has benefited many schoolchildren. However, the General Assembly has not focused on the core

[2]

- - - - - - - - - -

constitutional directive of DeRolph I: “a complete systematic overhaul” of the school-funding system. Id., 78 Ohio St.3d at 212, 677 N.E.2d 733. Today we reiterate that that is what is needed, not further nibbling at the edges. Accordingly, we direct the General Assembly to enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient, as explained in DeRolph I, DeRolph II, and the accompanying concurrences.

{¶6} We are not unmindful of the difficulties facing the state, but those difficulties do not trump the Constitution. Section 2, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution states, “The general assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools * * *.” This language is essentially unchanged from the initial report from the Standing Committee on Education at the Constitutional Convention of 1850-51. I Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Convention for the Revision of the Constitution, 1850-51 (1851) 693 (“Debates”). Even the minority report, presented by those opposed to the above language, had virtually the same import. It stated, “The General Assembly shall provide by law a system of common schools, and permanent means for the support thereof * * *.” Id. at 694.

{¶7} The delegates and through them the people of this state expressed their desire for more and better education and their desire that the state should be responsible for it. Delegate J. McCormick, from Adams County, stated, “Under the old Constitution it is provided that public schools and the cause of education shall be forever encouraged; and, under this constitutional provision, we have trusted the General Assembly for forty-eight years; and we may trust them for forty-eight years longer, without any good result. * * * Our system of common schools, instead of improving in legislative hands, has been degenerating; and I think it is time that we should take the thing in hands ourselves.” II Debates 702.

[3]

- - - - - - - - - -

William Hawkins, a delegate from Morgan County, said, “[W]e are warranted by public sentiment in requiring at the hands of the General Assembly a full, complete and efficient system of public education.” Id. at 16. The delegates perceived the General Assembly of that time as being insufficiently committed to education. Even though some delegates wanted to leave matters wholly to local authorities, see id. at 17, the delegates in their wisdom decided to include the Thorough and Efficient Clause in the Constitution. They and the people used the Constitution to command ongoing affirmative action by the General Assembly.

{¶8} James Taylor, a delegate from Erie County, stated, “I think it must be clear to every reflecting mind that the true policy of the statesman is to provide the means of education, and consequent moral improvement, to every child in the State, the offspring of the black man equally with that of the white man, the children of the poor equally with the rich.” Id. at 11. Samuel Quigley, a delegate from Columbiana County, stated, “[T]he report directs the Legislature to make full and ample provision for securing a thorough and efficient system of common school education, free to all the children in the State. The language of this section is expressive of the liberality worthy a great State, and a great people. There is no stopping place here short of a common school education to all children in the State.” Id. at 14. The delegates knew what they wanted, what the people wanted, and that it was necessary to use the Constitution to achieve what they wanted.

{¶9} The Thorough and Efficient Clause is part of our Constitution and part of our heritage. There were delegates who approved of even stronger language. Delegate McCormick proposed “a consolidation of all the general and local funds of the State, and distribution of the amount equally among the children of the State.” II Debates at 17. Otway Curry, a delegate from Union County, expressed his concern that the Thorough and Efficient Clause would “prove totally insufficient and powerless.” Id. at 710. Were this court to avoid its

[4]

- - - - - - - - - -

responsibility to give continued meaning to the Constitution, his fears would become reality.

{¶10} The Constitution of this state is the bedrock of our society. It expressly directs the General Assembly to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools, and it does so expressly because the legislature of the midnineteenth century would not. As R.P. Ranney, a delegate from Trumbull County, put it, “I desire to lay a plan such as within certain limits the Legislature shall be bound to carry out.” Id. at 16.

{¶11} We realize that the General Assembly cannot spend money it does not have. Nevertheless, we reiterate that the constitutional mandate must be met. The Constitution protects us whether the state is flush or destitute. The Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Thorough and Efficient Clause of the Ohio Constitution, and all other provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions protect and guard us at all times. Harman Stidger, a delegate from Stark County, said, “If we should leave every thing to the Legislature, why not adjourn this Convention sine die, at once?” Id. at 11. The same could be said of this court and the Ohio Constitution.

Judgment accordingly.

RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur.

RESNICK, J., concurs separately.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

MOYER, C.J., dissents.

COOK, J., dissents.

__________________

"It is not there to "recognize the will of the people. It is there to interpret the law as it is, and render decisions in accordance with the law."

The Roe v Wade decision was based on an "emanation from a penumbra" in response to the will of the people at the time.

[misterwhite #139] Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."

I have voiced my dissent to Roe, believing jurisdiction should reside with the states.

The courts do not exist to "recognize the will of the people." It is not their purpose to respond to polls. It is YOU who espouses that they MUST respond to what you perceive to be the will of the people, or unlawful and unconstitutional action should be taken to knock them out of the game. You explicitly made reference to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions...."

This is preposterous nonsense.

Our lawfully established form of government allows the elimination of judicial review via the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

There is no provision to eliminate judicial review. Read it again, more carefully this time. Your assertion leads to the inevitable conclusion that the whole judicial branch can effectively, and permanently, be eliminated by the legislature.

If, as you posit, the legislature has the power to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions," what would escape this awesome power?

If the lawful power exists to eliminate any judicial review of federal legislative or executive actions you desire to exempt from judicial review, what federal legislative or executive actions cannot be exempted from judicial review?

There is authority given to the Congress to limit APPELLATE JURISDICTION of the Supreme Court.

However, were judicial review eliminated, as you indicate it can be, that would result in a king whose edicts could not be challenged by any legal process.

The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."

---

The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution.

Not so, the Justices may be impeached by the HOR. This happened to Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi5

They're all eligible to be executed after a speedy trial. So they can't just do whatever they want without facing consequences.

The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution.

Not so, the Justices may be impeached by the HOR. This happened to Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution.

Justices may be impeached by the House. Justice Chase was impeached by the House, just as President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House.

All charges against Justice Chase involved actions taken as a trial judge in lower courts. Justice Chase was acquitted of all charges by the Senate.

That a Justice may be impeached for high crimes or misdemeanors is irrelevant to whether the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution.

U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

* * *

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

"It is YOU who espouses that they MUST respond to what you perceive to be the will of the people, or unlawful and unconstitutional action should be taken to knock them out of the game."

You seem confused so let me be clear:

I am saying that, based on observable action at these flag burning protests, the U.S. Supreme Court should declare flag flag bu fl flag flag bu flag flag burning to be categorized as "hate speech", "fighting words" or an incitement to imminent violence. Before someone is injured or killed.

IF the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to do this, I am saying that Congress should exercise their constitutional power under Article III, Section 2, and strip the court's appellate jurisdiction on this matter and turn it over to the states.

"If, as you posit, the legislature has the power to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions," what would escape this awesome power?"

Nothing. That's like asking, "If Congress has the power to regulate Commerce, what can't they regulate?" Same answer.

And why is this power "awesome" when Congress wields it but not when the U.S. Supreme Court wields it? Need I remind you that the people elect members of Congress, not the judiciary, and that Congress is responsible to the people, not the judiciary.

"If it is a statute law, the legislature has the power to amend or repeal the statute ...."

.... unless Congress removes the court's appellate jurisdiction on the matter.

"Shit-For-Brains loves judicial legislation, almost as much as he hates original intent."

Ohhhh, having 50 different laws is so messy and confusing. It's much better to have five unelected and unaccountable justices decide how all of us should live.

And if you don't like it, amend the U.S. Constitution.