Do you know your A..B..C..s ?

[Into the Night]

Mantra 23b, 7 = I am just regurgitating crap.

That you are.

 

[Into the Night]

Holy Link.
Into the Night cites the Constitution as proof but never questions the text of the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States is not a Holy Link. Redefinition fallacy.

The Constitution clearly states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" and the Constitution also states "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;"
Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, judicial power extends to all cases where there is a question about the Constitution. Clearly the court has the power to interpret the Constitution just as they can interpret every other law.

No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution. No court is over the Constitution.

Are temperature readings random numbers in your view?

What temperature readings?

The problem is that you use RandU as an argument for anything that is not random that you disagree with, temperature readings,

What temperature readings?

poll responses,

What poll responses?

calculations for Stephen Boltzman for different types of materials.

There is no materials factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Mantras 8b, 23b. = I am just regurgitating crap.

That you are.

 

[Into the Night]

Blatent lie = I am just regurgitating crap.

Clearly you have not provided the answer since no one has seen it and you can't point to the specific post where you did answer the question. RQAA is you trolling. It will always be you trolling since trolling is the only thing you are capable of doing. You clearly can't make any valid arguments supported with facts.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else. Asking a question over and over that has already been answered is mindless.

 

[Into the Night]

A lovely example of the equivocation fallacy. You attempt to use a different definition of the word from the one that is being used in the argument.

It is YOU that has an English problem.

It is you that misreads the Constitution.

You are describing yourself again.

Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it is not. If you argue that it isn't then you need to show where the part of the Constitution I quoted is refuted or negated. You have not done so. There are 3 things listed that are the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, the laws created under the Constitution and treaties entered into. All 3 are considered the supreme law. Perhaps you are unclear how punctuation works in the English language. "Under the authority of the United States refers to the treaties. It is separated from the Constitution and the laws by a semicolon which would make it only apply to the treaty clause of the sentence. There is no authority of the United States to pass laws. The process laid out in the Constitution doesn't grant the United States authority to pass laws. Only Congress has the authority to pass laws so clearly the phrase "under the authority of the United States" can not refer to laws or the Constitution.

See Article I.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says states are the only ones with the power to interpret the Constitution.

See Articles I, II, III, IV, V, and VII, and the 9th and 10th amendments. The States own the Constitution. They created it. Only they have the authority to change it or abolish it and thus dissolve the federal government.

The amendment process gives states the power to amend the Constitution but even there the power is limited because only some of the states have to ratify any amendment. So a state can't interpret the Constitution on its own nor can they refuse to accept part of the Constitution they didn't ratify if 3/4 of the states do ratify it.

See Articles I, II, III, IV, V, and VII and the 9th and 10th amendments.

You ignore the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and courts are given the power to decide all cases in the law.

See Articles III, IV, and V. They are NOT given power to interpret or change the Constitution.

Clearly the courts are given the power to interpret the law or they would not be able to decide any question about an interpretation of the law. Since courts can interpret the law and the Constitution is merely a supreme law then the courts can interpret the Constitution.

No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

"Any rational adult" would be a violation under Into the Night's Mantras. Congratulations on the violation. Would you like to try to make your argument again without using so many logical fallacies?

You cannot blame your problems on IBDaMann, myself, or anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

You are guilty of thinking a window is furniture.

Contextomy fallacy. He did no such thing. YOU DID.

I don't think we need to even look at the rest of your argument since it starts with nonsense.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Violence under the law includes damage to property which would include buildings and their windows and would also include furniture.

Contextomy fallacy. Semantics fallacy. You cannot consider two different people as the same person.

At this point you have been provided the evidence you asked for and rather than accepting the evidence, admitting you were wrong, you are striving to change the meanings of words so you can still be correct in your own mind.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame YOUR problems on anybody else.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You quite clearly explain why you are egregiously in error. Let's quote you ...


... does not refer to any treaties or laws. It refers to authority. The Constitution gets its authority from the States. The States are sovereign.


Yes, I have already explained this to you. The Constitution clearly states that powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States, and to the People. The power to interpret is not granted to anyone, therefore it is reserved to the States.


Correct!


That's not a limitation on the States as a union.


Nope. I acknowledge that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is not, however, as you would have us believe, the supreme authority, which is the sovereign States. This is why the name of the country is the United States.


Nope. They are given the authority to try cases, but the rule of law shall decide the cases.


I can tell when you are getting desperate because you begin hiding behind the word "clearly" without adding anything new.

You have only one avenue to support your assertion, i.e. show in the Constitution where any court is granted the power to interpret anything. I await your response with great interest. It will prove an amazing trick since the word "interpet" does not appear in the Constitution at all.


Correct. They don't interpret any laws. They try cases. This is why judges require both sides to support their cases with all relevant case law, because that law, existing law and case law, the courts apply the law and that decides the case. There is no interpreting, because that imputes the power to legislate, which is prohibited.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

What is the meaning of the word all? It normally means every single one.

That then leads us to your claim that only the states can interpret the Constitution. This fails for several reasons.

First is that if the states can interpret the Constitution it means that a state is not bound by the Constitution because they can interpret it to allow them to keep slaves or to put a tariff on goods from another state. Clearly this is not possible under the Constitution because otherwise it would not be the supreme law.

The second reason is if two states have different interpretations then it becomes a controversy between states. For example if New York says the Constitution gives them the power to put a tariff on goods from New Jersey and New Jersey says the Constitution prohibits that. At that point one need only look to the Constitution to see the remedy.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, ...;--to Controversies between two or more States;
The Constitution gives courts the power to decide all cases where states disagree. If we accept your position that states can interpret the Constitution then any time the states disagree on that interpretation the courts have been given the power to rule on that disagreement which means the courts have the final say on interpretation.

Finally, we have the 10th amendment that you rely on for your argument. 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. Under your interpretation, the power to interpret the Constitution is not just reserved to the states but also to the people. People can interpret the Constitution differently as evidenced by our disagreement. If the courts do not have the power to decide the cases where the interpretations are different then the Constitution is meaningless.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, ...--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--

The courts can only rule on cases. They won't rule on our disagreement because there is no legal case here. But any legal case where there is a question of the interpretation of the Constitution or of a law, the courts have been granted that power. The courts have always had the power to interpret the law. If they can't interpret the law then they could never rule on any case because every legal case requires interpreting the meaning of the law as well as the facts. Jury instructions often include an interpretation of the law. In most cases that interpretation is not controversial.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You haven't shown any videos of violence by anyone who was arrested.

Watch your video again. He didn't strike anyone. He was guilty of holding a stick. He was guilty of throwing a pylon (not in the video).

You are going to have to do better than that. Show some violence.

At 47 seconds into the video, they show a slowed down clip of Josiah Kenyon swinging a stick and hitting a police officer in the head.
Your denials are getting ridiculous at this point. Clearly you are not capable of making rational arguments if you claim swinging at and hitting a police officer in the head is simply holding a stick.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. Again, there was no violence. The man pointed his finger at the cops. For that, he was imprisoned for 70 months.

at 25 seconds into the video, we see the police bodycam video that clearly shows Ronald McAbee with his arms on an officer yelling at others to go. If you look close you will see that the officer is likely on the ground with Ronald McAbee on top of him.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Contextomy fallacy. He did no such thing. YOU DID.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Contextomy fallacy. Semantics fallacy. You cannot consider two different people as the same person.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame YOUR problems on anybody else.

Argument of the stoned to the point of completely out of his mind.

 

[Into the Night]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

What is the meaning of the word all? It normally means every single one.

That then leads us to your claim that only the states can interpret the Constitution. This fails for several reasons.

First is that if the states can interpret the Constitution it means that a state is not bound by the Constitution because they can interpret it to allow them to keep slaves or to put a tariff on goods from another state. Clearly this is not possible under the Constitution because otherwise it would not be the supreme law.

The second reason is if two states have different interpretations then it becomes a controversy between states. For example if New York says the Constitution gives them the power to put a tariff on goods from New Jersey and New Jersey says the Constitution prohibits that. At that point one need only look to the Constitution to see the remedy.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, ...;--to Controversies between two or more States;
The Constitution gives courts the power to decide all cases where states disagree. If we accept your position that states can interpret the Constitution then any time the states disagree on that interpretation the courts have been given the power to rule on that disagreement which means the courts have the final say on interpretation.

Finally, we have the 10th amendment that you rely on for your argument. 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. Under your interpretation, the power to interpret the Constitution is not just reserved to the states but also to the people. People can interpret the Constitution differently as evidenced by our disagreement. If the courts do not have the power to decide the cases where the interpretations are different then the Constitution is meaningless.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, ...--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--

The courts can only rule on cases. They won't rule on our disagreement because there is no legal case here. But any legal case where there is a question of the interpretation of the Constitution or of a law, the courts have been granted that power. The courts have always had the power to interpret the law. If they can't interpret the law then they could never rule on any case because every legal case requires interpreting the meaning of the law as well as the facts. Jury instructions often include an interpretation of the law. In most cases that interpretation is not controversial.

No court is above the Constitution. No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Argument of the stoned to the point of completely out of his mind.

Mantra 1d.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No court is above the Constitution. No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

Aren't you cute with your childish declamations? Do you have an actual argument or are you just going to stamp your feet until we give you an ice cream cone?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Mantra 1d.

"Mantra 1d" = "I am regurgitating crap"

 

[IBDaMann]

What is the meaning of the word all?

Wrong question. What is the extent of "judicial power"? Answer: to try cases, in this case all of them, and let the law decide the outcome.

Can the State Department try any cases? Nope. The State Department doesn't have any judicial power.

Does "judicial power" include interpreting something? Answer: Nope.

That then leads us to your claim that only the states can interpret the Constitution. This fails for several reasons.

Your rationale is what will fail. Anyway, let's get on with it ...

First is that if the states can interpret the Constitution it means that a state is not bound by the Constitution

Logic failure: This does not logically follow. No individual State is the set of the United States

The second reason is if two states have different interpretations then it becomes a controversy between states.

Logic failure: There might come disagreements between two or more States over interpretation of the Constitution, even ones that cause controversy. This does not create any sort of Constitutional crisis.

For example if New York says the Constitution gives them the power to put a tariff on goods from New Jersey and New Jersey says the Constitution prohibits that.

Semantics failure: You are not describing "interpreting." You are describing different States building competing cases to be tried by the Supreme Court, who will apply the law for a decision according to the rule of law. If the power to apply tariffs has been given to the government (Congress) then the Supreme Court will rule that the power to apply tariffs is not reserved for the States.

Finally, we have the 10th amendment that you rely on for your argument. 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. Under your interpretation, the power to interpret the Constitution is not just reserved to the states but also to the people.

Logic failure: The conjunction used is "or", not "and." A power reserved to the States is not also necessarily reserved to the People; it is reserved to the States or to the People.

The courts can only rule on cases.

Semantics failure. The courts can only try cases. The law decides each case. That is what is meant by "the rule of law."

But any legal case where there is a question of the interpretation of the Constitution or of a law, the courts have been granted that power.

Delusion: This has never happened. We've been over this multiple times. You are chanting.

The courts have always had the power to interpret the law.

Delusion: This has never been the case. We've been over this multiple times. You are chanting.

If they can't interpret the law then they could never rule on any case because every legal case requires interpreting the meaning of the law

General failure: The courts don't rule on cases, they try cases, the law rules, and no case involves interpreting the law.

 

[Lionfish]

California is not for me, but I am sick of these Anti-Americans running states down because they don't kiss TRUMP's ASS like he does!

He can just go stew in his own SHIT!

Little Lizard, you have been quite the twit for the past few weeks. Care to share?

 

[IBDaMann]

At 47 seconds into the video, they show a slowed down clip of Josiah Kenyon swinging a stick and hitting a police officer in the head.

Your claims are becoming increasingly absurd. At 47 seconds we see Josiah Kenyon pointing his stick at an officer, the most extreme we see from him.

I'll remind you that this not violence, but dishonest people like you have no trouble claiming that it somehow is.

 

[IBDaMann]

at 25 seconds into the video, we see the police bodycam video that clearly shows Ronald McAbee with his arms on an officer yelling at others to go.

There is no violence being committed by Ronal McAbee in this video. Your unsupported speculation about other events that are not shown do not equate to violence being shown.

 

[Into the Night]

Aren't you cute with your childish declamations?

The Constitution of the United States is no 'childish.

 

[Into the Night]

"Mantra 1d" = "I am regurgitating crap"

You certainly are.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Little Lizard, you have been quite the twit for the past few weeks. Care to share?

Yes, I am responding to those assholes that hate me and insult me because I do not agree with them politically.

So Touche! Bring it, go ahead, insult me, and I will insult you back.