Can You Answer These Constitutional Questions?

And what did RFRA do that I claimed could not be done regarding the Hobby Lobby case? The Hobby Lobby case is before the Supreme Court, and an act is not a constitutional argument unless the act is being challenged as unconstitutional. Hobby Lobby is arguing a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

It overrode the precedent set in a court case, Employment Division vs Smith.

Is English your second language, do you require the repetition because you are fucking stupid or because you are a troll? I can tolerate the first two but with usf and yurt lurking we are all filled up on this sort of trolling here.

No, Hobby Lobby is arguing that their rights under the RFRA are being violated.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/
 
Unlike you, I don't rely on my personal opinion, supposition or conjecture on this issue. I use historical, documented and valid FACTS to support my assertions.

Like all intellectually dishonest neocon/teabagger/libbertrarians flunkies, you don't DARE address the FACTS I put forth....instead you create some moronic "yes/no" alternative that in your mind will "win" for you if no one buys into your BS.

Sorry toodles, but you've played that card before...and in light of what is actually in the Constitution and it's amendments and rights, along with the historical precedent of cases, your question is worthless ploy.

You and STY have a nice time now, ya hear?

tell us in your own words if the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution? If the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution, why did the founders waste so much paper and ink writing the rest of the Constitution? What DOESN'T the general welfare clause trump in the Constitution? Who gets to decide what's a valid action of government in the name of the general welfare? By what authority? What's the meaning of the 10th Amendment in your own words.

I'll wait!!!!!
 
So then according to you the actual construction of the Constitution has little valid authority in determining lawful rights and privileges of individuals and limitations on the powers of government, it’s simply a loosely constructed guideline for the courts to interpret willy-nilly to validate their own particular political biases and collective ideology, correct?

No, that is not what I said, go back and re-read. look up the difficult words if you don't understand.

Please explain how the “general welfare” can be trumped by just about anything legally and constitutionally. What trumps for instance The power of the Congress “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

“To borrow money on the credit of the United States;”

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;”

“To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;”

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;”

“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”

“To provide and maintain a Navy;”

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And”

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

And to enforce all laws established by the amendments to the Constitution whereby the power to be enforced is granted to the Congress by the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court, just about anything COULD trump those powers, if the Court found that the way the Fed was carrying out the above powers was in direct conflict with some other Constitutional Right.




These are the actual “General Welfare” mentioned in article one, section eight of the Constitution. Where in the Constitution can we find the power of the courts to trump anything enumerated in the Constitution as the general welfare?

Where in the Constitution can we find the power of the courts to establish or deliver it’s opinions based on a “balance test?”

Again, I will point out that the Constitution has within itself framework that will always result in conflicting rights and duties. When those rights and duties conflict it is the job of the Supreme Court to conduct a balancing test. If they did not the Federal Government could not exist. It would be easy for any individual to trump any and all actions of the Federal Government, by filing a lawsuit that demanded they stop because the action violated some portion of the Constitution. If the Courts had no ability to sort that out, all things would end.
 
According to the Supreme Court, just about anything COULD trump those powers, if the Court found that the way the Fed was carrying out the above powers was in direct conflict with some other Constitutional Right.

Again, I will point out that the Constitution has within itself framework that will always result in conflicting rights and duties. When those rights and duties conflict it is the job of the Supreme Court to conduct a balancing test. If they did not the Federal Government could not exist. It would be easy for any individual to trump any and all actions of the Federal Government, by filing a lawsuit that demanded they stop because the action violated some portion of the Constitution. If the Courts had no ability to sort that out, all things would end.

where in the constitution does it give the government the authority or power to 'balance' rights against 'compelling government interest'?
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Not quite:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-ov...ourt-cases.htm


You are bringing howstuffworks.com to a debate and expect to be taken seriously? Refute what I said with something other than the opinion of howstuffworks because they are not in the ballpark.

Instead of bitching about the site, why not logically and factually refute/disprove what they say (they cited 10 cases, you know?) If you can't then you're just blowing smoke.

But if you want another example:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2115&context=wmlr
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Unlike you, I don't rely on my personal opinion, supposition or conjecture on this issue. I use historical, documented and valid FACTS to support my assertions.


the fuck you do. you rely on leftist talking points to tell you what to think and say and you always have.

You're coming off as stupid as the bogus Classic Liberal. As the chronology of the posts shows, you displayed sheer ignorance as to the history of the subject and a comprehension of interaction.

Like I told your buddy CL, your opinion, supposition and conjecture DOES NOT replace/substitute or are on par with HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED FACTS, DOCUMENTATIONS AND VALID CASE LAW.

You're a prime example as to why I call libertarians a fucking joke. Carry on.
 
and you're a prime example of why people are mostly idiots. the 'chronology' and comprehension you have displayed here does nothing more than show you to be a statist totalitarian believing that the government created our nation of 'we the people' and that whatever they say, goes. that makes you the biggest fucking joke of all.
 
It overrode the precedent set in a court case, Employment Division vs Smith.

Is English your second language, do you require the repetition because you are fucking stupid or because you are a troll? I can tolerate the first two but with usf and yurt lurking we are all filled up on this sort of trolling here.

No, Hobby Lobby is arguing that their rights under the RFRA are being violated.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/

Why are all liberals philistines?

Employment Division vs Smith is has nothing to do with this; it was a state criminal statute.

If you want to argue the merits of Hobby Lobby with me you are going to have to do better than running to Google. Use the actual case, and don't waste my time with an argument by proxy. And act does not ruses a federal question, and Hobby Lobby is arguing a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not the primary argument, but rather a violation of a statute, which is not a right. Learn the difference between a right and a law, and you will not embarrass yourself hopefully in the future.
 
Instead of bitching about the site, why not logically and factually refute/disprove what they say (they cited 10 cases, you know?) If you can't then you're just blowing smoke.

But if you want another example:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2115&context=wmlr

Spare me your Google legal education. If you want to argue the law, argue the law, but don't think you are arguing the law with a Google search and picking what pleases your ideology.
 
No, that is not what I said, go back and re-read. look up the difficult words if you don't understand.



According to the Supreme Court, just about anything COULD trump those powers, if the Court found that the way the Fed was carrying out the above powers was in direct conflict with some other Constitutional Right.






Again, I will point out that the Constitution has within itself framework that will always result in conflicting rights and duties. When those rights and duties conflict it is the job of the Supreme Court to conduct a balancing test. If they did not the Federal Government could not exist. It would be easy for any individual to trump any and all actions of the Federal Government, by filing a lawsuit that demanded they stop because the action violated some portion of the Constitution. If the Courts had no ability to sort that out, all things would end.

How any random Supreme Court rules is not the intent or meaning of the Constitution regardless of which side claims victory. I like Marshall, in general, but Marshall was appointed only because of his political affiliation. Most appointed justices are politicians parading around as judges; there have been many exceptions, but they were exceptions.
 
Spare me your Google legal education. If you want to argue the law, argue the law, but don't think you are arguing the law with a Google search and picking what pleases your ideology.
Nice burn on the Libby.
 
Last edited:
Why are all liberals philistines?

Employment Division vs Smith is has nothing to do with this; it was a state criminal statute.

If you want to argue the merits of Hobby Lobby with me you are going to have to do better than running to Google. Use the actual case, and don't waste my time with an argument by proxy. And act does not ruses a federal question, and Hobby Lobby is arguing a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not the primary argument, but rather a violation of a statute, which is not a right. Learn the difference between a right and a law, and you will not embarrass yourself hopefully in the future.

Yes, Employment Division vs Smith is relevant as it was an impetus to passing the the RFRA. It did not concern a state criminal statute.

I provided you with references to the briefs filed in the Hobby Lobby case. The writ of certiorari begins with...

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden satisfies strict scrutiny. Id. § 2000bb-1(a), (b). Respondents are a family and their closely held businesses, which they operate according to their religious beliefs.

You have confirmed the fact that you are an ignorant blowhard who knows nothing about the case, law and is unable to make sense of an issue even when provided with the best sources.

The RFRA was passed to override the Supreme Courts decision in Employment Division vs Smith and similar cases. It is the primary issue in the Hobby Lobby case.
 
No, that is not what I said, go back and re-read. look up the difficult words if you don't understand.

Oh! But it’s exactly what you said! Your argument consist of nothing but some bogus dream you’ve had about some “balancing act” that you can produce absolutely no authority for in the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court, just about anything COULD trump those powers, if the Court found that the way the Fed was carrying out the above powers was in direct conflict with some other Constitutional Right.

According to the Supreme Court, Obama-Care AKA the ACA is constitutional on the grounds that Congress has the power to tax. By that absurd notion the Congress has the power to do whatever the fuck it wants as long as Congress taxes the people for whatever the fuck Congress decides it wants to do. That friend is the absurd ideologically corrupted blabbering of the corrupt partisan bastards on the court.

Again, I will point out that the Constitution has within itself framework that will always result in conflicting rights and duties. When those rights and duties conflict it is the job of the Supreme Court to conduct a balancing test.

What “balancing test” did the Supreme Court use to find Obama-Care constitutional when there is no power listed in the Constitution for the feds to operate a national healthcare program?

If they did not the Federal Government could not exist. It would be easy for any individual to trump any and all actions of the Federal Government, by filing a lawsuit that demanded they stop because the action violated some portion of the Constitution. If the Courts had no ability to sort that out, all things would end.

And by your absurd “balancing act” the Court has the power to trump anything and everything in the Constitution in the name of “balance.”

So then in your world the Court can simply ignore the strict construction of the Constitution and decide what’s constitutional by a broad Willy-Nilly decision making process tainted by their political ideology or however they felt when they got out of bed on any particular morning, right?

How about you try to answer this?

What decision can’t the Supreme Court make in the name of your “balancing act?”

What part did your “balancing act” do in the Court to find Obama-Care constitutional?

Where in the Constitution can we find the Judicial power for your mysterious “balancing act?”

In your own words, what does the 10th amendment to the Constitution mandate?
 
and you're a prime example of why people are mostly idiots. the 'chronology' and comprehension you have displayed here does nothing more than show you to be a statist totalitarian believing that the government created our nation of 'we the people' and that whatever they say, goes. that makes you the biggest fucking joke of all.

Stop babbling man! Post #61 & 62 on this thread clearly demonstrate your sheer ignorance on this subject, and how you continually and proudly squawk that ignorance like the libertarian parrot that you are!

Throwing all the names & labels in the book won't erase those post which demonstrate your insipidly stubborn and willfully ignorant stance. When pushed, all libertarian lunkheads essentially demonstrate the basis of their idiocy.....selfishness born of a delusional belief that they are some sort totally self reliant, "free market", "by your bootstraps" joker who only needs federal standards to supply an army to protect your dopey ass.

Why then, should I pay to protect the likes of you, genius? State or Federal? And did you ever stop and THINK as to how 50 INDIVIDUAL states could possibly interact with 50 different set of laws, agendas, etc.?

No one said the system is perfect, you fool....that is why people petition, organize, debate and fight to get it right so we can function as a COUNTRY for, by and of the PEOPLE, so our gov't can promote the general welfare OF THE PEOPLE. Not everyone gets everything that they want, but as the old song goes, they get what they need!

So babble on, my libertarian lunkhead...you're nothing more than a rabid right winger with delusions of impartiality.
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Instead of bitching about the site, why not logically and factually refute/disprove what they say (they cited 10 cases, you know?) If you can't then you're just blowing smoke.

But if you want another example:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...5&context=wmlr

Spare me your Google legal education. If you want to argue the law, argue the law, but don't think you are arguing the law with a Google search and picking what pleases your ideology.


Why don't you spare me your bluff and bluster, Asa? You are no more a lawyer than I am.....and God help anyone who renders your services if you are, because you can't debate worth a damn. Every blessed time you libertarian/right wing blowhards are faced with facts and historical precedents that disprove your personal beliefs, suppositions and conjecture...you start whining like little bitches, avoiding the CONTENT of what is presented like the plague.

One argues the law based on FACTS, toodles! That's what I presented, and you don't like it. Anything else is akin to debating the number of dancing angels on a pinhead.

TFB if you can't logically or factually refute/disprove what I present to support my statements and assertions....no one said life was fair or that you'd win all the time. Grow up.
 
where in the constitution does it give the government the authority or power to 'balance' rights against 'compelling government interest'?


I've answered that question. Its not in the Constitution. The Constitution outlines government interests and individual rights. Sometimes those two things conflict. Additionally sometimes rights conflict with other rights.

How would you suggest we resolve the problem when citizens petition the Court to sort out whose right trumps the others, or when a citizen says his right was violated by a specific government interest?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top