Does the Constitution allow any exceptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Gatorman said:
I've made several points and asked several questions and you haven't addressed any of them, twatscum. I have at least attempted to address your ignorant assed bullshit and have been honest about doing so. Your lies remain simply lies.
Click to expand...
what questions did you ask me in this thread? i've made it a point to answer any and all questions put directly to me.
 
enough said:
don....i said it was from 1849....so i fail to see how you were taught different in the the 1960's.

i hope you're ok bud. i like you.
Click to expand...

weird, when a provision in the ca constitution is overridden it is usually 'lined' out, but i guess that was not being done back then, because i was shown the text from a copy of the ca constitution

oh well
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is incorrect as well. certain cases have come before the scotus where scotus has decided that some law didn't violate the constitution and remanded the case back to the state, where then said state supreme court has decided that their state constitution provides stronger protections of rights than federal and have kept their decision. the only time scotus can permanently override a state court is where any congressional powers come in to play.
Click to expand...

yes, scotus has ruled that states can grant more protections than the us constitution, it is when a lower court rules that a law is against the us constitution that scotus refusing to accept a case sustains the lower court ruling
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you didn't really ask me any questions at all, you just tried to make it look like you did because your stupidity was exposed to all.
Click to expand...

I stand by my statement. I've asked questions and made points directly to you. All you do is ignore all that and start up your insults and 3rd grade bullshit.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
also incorrect. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz has the scotus deciding that sobriety checkpoints do not violate the 4th Amendment, so they reversed the decision of the michigan supreme court and remanded it back to them, where the michigan court immediately decided that their own constitution provided better 4th Amendment protections and overturned scotus. other states have had the same and decided that their own constitutions better protected the rights of their people and ignored supreme court rulings.



and then voted by the people to approve up or down votes of the delegates. that's being written by we the people, unless you're just demanding to be that exact, in which case we can say that madison wrote the constitution, not the delegates.
Click to expand...


while madison 'wrote' the us constitution, the selected/elected delegates approved it, we have a representative democracy not a direct democracy

actually, the term 'we the people' is grandiose as things are done by elected representatives/delegates, still it sounds nice and i wish it were true

all of the people of the u s of a rarely if ever agree on anything

a significant number of people did not agree to the revolutionary war (they were called tories or crown loyalists, [h=2]United States History - Loyalists During the American Revolution)[/h]
and yes i am trying to be precise

oh well
 
Don Quixote said:
weird, when a provision in the ca constitution is overridden it is usually 'lined' out, but i guess that was not being done back then, because i was shown the text from a copy of the ca constitution

oh well
Click to expand...

don....CA constitution forbids slavery and has done so since 1849.

why would that be overridden? why would that be lined out?

what you're saying is - is that in the 1960's i was taught the CA constitution allowed slavery, despite the fact that in 1849, CA forbade slavery. that does not make any sense to me don. can you help me out here? i don't see how you saw a copy of the CA constitution that allowed slavery, since it never did. are you perhaps mixing something up?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no and it doesn't have to because all men are considered free, as well as rights being absolute. i've seen the argument that if rights can be denied through due process, then they are not absolute and it's about as silly as the constitution being a living document because it can be amended. it's a silly argument that the founders would not have even listened to.
Click to expand...

not originally, slavery was still legal and a free 'black/colored man' vote was only a partial vote
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top