PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
old news....
HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
old news....
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
After Trump is jerked out of the White House by his impeachment, it will be decades before another Republican shits in the White House again- Or shits on it!
I now know what you may not have known I'd know.
- You are not a lawyer.
- You are not in the legal profession.
I'm vastly too mature to bicker with you about it.
But those that have studied either the history or the legal theory of it you'll learn how pivotal Stare Decisis is to U.S. law.
The proof that SCOTUS interprets the law is that it has reversed ITSELF a number of times, in its interpretation of the law.
And while such rulings may not reword the Constitution (I never asserted otherwise) it certainly can and does change how the law is applied.
This is not some ancillary formality that scholars sweep under the rug. It's one of the primary duties this U.S.' highest court.
Art.3 Sect.2-1 explains it further.
Want an example of how SCOTUS changes the way our law is applied?
It's this COURT PRECEDENT ("stare decisis") that is the basis for the "Miranda warning" perhaps familiar to 60 year old criminals, and fans of 1960's era COP (TV) shows. "You have the right to remain silent ..." etc.
You are talking to a wall.
He pretends intellectualism...but actually has the intellectualism of a pile of rocks.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is incorrect. at least half of it is. This is a country of free people with the legal right to judge both law and fact. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution and WE THE PEOPLE are the final arbiters of what it means, not the courts, as they would have you believe.
Please concisely quote the alleged error, and then propose a correction. Thanks.
Oh! Wouldn't that be nice! In fact, the U.S. doesn't live up to this standard.
We have the legal right to sing Glory Hallelujah too. But such lyric is no more binding in law as such lay legal opinion is.
Are you deliberately alluding to the law court cliche' that the judge judges the law, and the jurors judge the facts?
In any case the opinions of private lay citizens is not binding in law, except when composing a jury finding (or perhaps in the voting booth).
Rather than distinguishing the two principles, you're churning them together.
Our law courts have a variety of functions, often dispute resolution. But our law courts also interpret both statute, and Constitutional law; and they do so by absolute necessity. Our system could not function properly without this ongoing interpretive function.
I thought your assertion was you're smarter than me. I see no obvious indication that you're either more intelligent, or better informed. Halloween's over. Try acting like a human.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
laughing at yourself for being that stupid about the constitution is no way to go through life, son.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
there is a HUGE difference between the constitution and constitutional law. usually constitutional law is at odds with most of the constitution because of the ideology of both judges and lawyers. in any case, we the people ALWAYS are the final arbiters of the constitution as evidenced by our RIGHT to jury nullification.
as to the smarter than 'you' comments, in alot of posts you make great arguments with alot of facts and case law, so i've never contended that i'm smarter than 'you', but in this instance, however...............
Nationality isn't inherited.. Citizenship is determined by jurisdiction. Do you think Mexican law has jurisdiction in the US? Like Trump, you have no grasp of the facts or the Constitution.. This will end in tragedy.
Well you would like to, the intent of the 14th was to enable, and make sure former slaves and their children would become citizens, it was purposely bastardized.
Until they do not show up for their asylum hearing, which many do, nice try.
Populists didn't write the constitution.. It simply wasn't written by the mob.
Unfortunately there can be, in practice. But our Constitution is not merely law. Art.6 Sect.2 our Constitution is "the supreme law of the land".
I'd rather not address that in generalities.
I eagerly invite a specific example, with explanation.
a) Intentionally or not you're distinguishing between law and practice.
b) Your position is contingent on the case being in court. But the law applies whether there's a court case or not. The law allowed GE to dump PCB's into the Hudson River for years. But cities downstream of the dump draw their drinking water from the Hudson, Poughkeepsie for example. Jury nullification isn't going to un-cause cancers.
c) In New York, jury nullification is illegal, though it may rarely be prosecuted.
d) I had an elderly friend that broke her hip. When I visited her in the hospital I could see she was wasting away, was not eating her meals. I thought perhaps if I could get her some marijuana it might improve her appetite. But by then I was in my 40's, in the mid-1990's. I'm so square I had no connection, and the War on marijuana hadn't disintegrated to the degree it has in 2018. I cite this example because she died. But I wonder if I'd been able to get her to eat, might it have made the difference? My intended point? Jury nullification wasn't a remedy for the Drug War in that case. She's dead & gone.
Perhaps my early morning quibble was motivated by my own pseudonym rivalry? But it does seem to flail the arrogance banner where simply as a protocol may be a bad idea. No worries.
No?
My Dad, Mr. sear was born in New York. He's a U.S. citizen.
I Mr. sear was born in New York. I'm a U.S. citizen.
Can be. But not exclusively so. Some persons have dual citizenship. But no one can be in two different places at once.
I think the Pope, through his Vatican authority, has jurisdiction over Catholics in Albuquerque.
No the Pope doesn't have jurisdiction over Catholics in the US.. That's not even a nice try..
No it wasn't. The founding fathers were white men of property.. That's why we have a representative democracy. The MOB had no input.
jurisdiction (j¢r´îs-dîk´shen) noun
Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs. b. The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.
[Middle English jurisdiccioun, from Old French juridicion, from Latin iúrisdictio, iúrisdiction- : iúris, genitive of iús, law + dictio, diction-, declaration (from dictus, past participle of dìcere, to say).]
- ju´risdic´tional adjective
- ju´risdic´tionally adverb *
If the Pope has no jurisdiction over Catholics, then they're not Catholic, even if they're catholic.
Called "freeholders". I never asserted otherwise.
I never asserted the mob had direct input.
The reality which you're dodging with the frantic agility of a champion is that the Founders didn't wish to waste their own time formulating a non-viable government.
And they also knew to formulate a viable government they'd need to accommodate within this nation of immigrants the full spectrum, wealthy and destitute alike. That is the mob to which I refer. It is the same "mob" our Founders referred to when they dismissed pure democracy as "mob rule".
Thus the mobs input which you deny even exists was the very nature of the mob; which our system of government accommodates.
* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
