APP - Economics Plutocracy

[midcan5]

I think I just explained it to you. The Supreme Court gave itself that power through Marbury v Madison. It wasn't written in the text of the Constitution. If it was, then Marbury would not have been necessary. The other two branches didn't keep the Court in check

You fancy yourself as this intellectual but you really aren't smart. Copying and pasting quotes from obscure books may sell at your Resistance meetings but I see right through it

Signs of a stupid person is their use of ad hominem and their censoring of people who challenge their ignorance. Article III of the Constitution grants the court its power. The Constitution is a living document, history shows that clearly. PS our first president is not an obscure figure.

"Article III of the Constitution establishes and empowers the judicial branch of the national government. The very first sentence of Article III says: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”


"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." Soren Kierkegaard

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Signs of a stupid person is their use of ad hominem and their censoring of people who challenge their ignorance. Article III of the Constitution grants the court its power. The Constitution is a living document, history shows that clearly. PS our first president is not an obscure figure.

"Article III of the Constitution establishes and empowers the judicial branch of the national government. The very first sentence of Article III says: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”


"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." Soren Kierkegaard

Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. I have no ability to censor you, but if it make you feel like a martyr to claim it, who am I to stop you.

No the Constitution is not a "living document". That is only claimed by people who don't like that it is a document of negative rights

Nothing in the US Constitution as originally written enshrines the Judiciary with interpreting the Constitution. In fact the Founders had as its goal for the Judiciary to be the weakest branch. The intent was for the legislative branch to be the strongest branch.

The "power" to interpret the Constitution was granted to the Supreme Court BY the Supreme Court.

 

[midcan5]

....No the Constitution is not a "living document". That is only claimed by people who don't like that it is a document of negative rights

Nothing in the US Constitution as originally written enshrines the Judiciary with interpreting the Constitution. In fact the Founders had as its goal for the Judiciary to be the weakest branch. The intent was for the legislative branch to be the strongest branch.

The "power" to interpret the Constitution was granted to the Supreme Court BY the Supreme Court.

You are getting off track, the Constitution covers it in Article III, no interpretation necessary. Since the scotus already had the authority, no interpretation was necessary. And you do realize there is an amendment process? Living it is. You already lost this argument as life moves on and the court decides the law of the land. You can whine forever ain't gonna change a thing.

"Conservatives’ vulnerability to accepting untruths didn’t apply equally to all false claims: When lies suggested dangerous or apocalyptic outcomes, more conservative participants were more likely to believe them than when the lie suggested a possible benefit."

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...ive-believe-false-threats-20170202-story.html

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

 

[canceled.2021.3]

You are getting off track, the Constitution covers it in Article III, no interpretation necessary. Since the scotus already had the authority, no interpretation was necessary. And you do realize there is an amendment process? Living it is. You already lost this argument as life moves on and the court decides the law of the land. You can whine forever ain't gonna change a thing.

"Conservatives’ vulnerability to accepting untruths didn’t apply equally to all false claims: When lies suggested dangerous or apocalyptic outcomes, more conservative participants were more likely to believe them than when the lie suggested a possible benefit."

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...ive-believe-false-threats-20170202-story.html

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

The Constitution did not expressly give the power to the Court. It is an implied power. Having an Amendment process isn't what people refer to when they call the Constitution a living document and you know it. You are trying to be coy.

If that were true then there would have been and Amendment for Roe v Wade. You know that hidden right to privacy in the Constitution that was never found before?

But, since you maintain that the Court "decides the law of the land" then you should 100% accept Citizens United and never complain about it right? Democrats should never try to overturn it because it is THE LAW OF THE LAND. Right?

 

[midcan5]

The Constitution did not expressly give the power to the Court. It is an implied power. Having an Amendment process isn't what people refer to when they call the Constitution a living document and you know it. You are trying to be coy.

If that were true then there would have been and Amendment for Roe v Wade. You know that hidden right to privacy in the Constitution that was never found before?

But, since you maintain that the Court "decides the law of the land" then you should 100% accept Citizens United and never complain about it right? Democrats should never try to overturn it because it is THE LAW OF THE LAND. Right?

See this is the problem with righties, subtlety eludes you. These are people not gods. Consider only a quote below from another book I have read lol. Try to get your head around other stupid Scotus decisions. Sometimes intelligent rational men and women wear those robes sometimes fools wear them. Thomas and Alito are two current fools. Right now Trump is selecting a bunch of wacko-doodles as judges so beware. lol Check these idiots out: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...sh_and_damien_schiff_will_help_transform.html

And read and learn.

"It was the Bill of Rights itself, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which made slavery legal in the Dred Scott case of 1857. That same Bill of Rights negated the results of the Civil War by making de facto slavery legal in the form of Segregation thanks to the Court's decision on Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896. Indeed, that same Bill of Rights ended de facto slavery with the Brown v. School Board decision in 1954, only after great internal debate among the judges. In 1905 the Court approved the exploitation of workers, women, children and immigrants, thanks to Lochner v. New York. It continues to find women unequal to men, in such cases as Bradwell v. Illinois or Hoyt v. Florida. In Korematsu. v. U.S.A. it also approved the removal by the Executive of the constitutional rights of the American Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

This is not to say that legislatures are incapable of acting badly: Over the question of Japanese rights in 1941, the parliaments of both Britain and Canada were guilty in the same way as the American Supreme Court of racism combined with financial opportunism - that is to say, the removal of rights, internment and forced disposition of property. The point is, however. that the Bill of Rights gave no extra protection, nor did the wisdom of the judges.

Still more important, these policy questions central to morality and humanism, central to the very nature of the citizen, were decided by an appointed body, The elected representatives thus escaped all responsibility for decisions which were essential to the moral and physical well-being of their electors. Worse still, so did the citizen." p326 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'