Infringement

[USFREEDOM911]

Is there enough bandwidth to do such a thing?

Well; we did have a thread reach 10,000 posts, which was not only a first, but it also did it in record time.


I could always limit it to a month and show how many there are, compared to the total number for that month's time.

 

[Into the Night]

That contradicts your statement that "No court has the authority to interpret the Constitution."

It is interpreting the Constitution if it is claiming Congress has no constitutional authority to have passed that law.

No, it isn't. It is interpreting the law passed by Congress and ONLY the law passed by Congress, to see if it complies with the Constitution. it cannot interpret the Constitution itself.

 

[Into the Night]

The next time I'm really bored and JPP is slow, I might just start a new thread and list all of domer's "intelligent" comments.

When I see such a thread form, I will know it's a slow post day.

 

[gfm7175]

That contradicts your statement that "No court has the authority to interpret the Constitution."

He is not contradicting himself. Rather, you are not comprehending the intricacies of what he is asserting.

It is interpreting the Constitution if it is claiming Congress has no constitutional authority to have passed that law.

He is saying that SCOTUS is interpreting the law that was passed by Congress UNDER the Constitution, NOT interpreting the Constitution itself.

You will notice in Article III that there is this little phrase which says "...arising under this Constitution...". "Under this Constitution" is not the Constitution itself.

 

[Flash]

He is not contradicting himself. Rather, you are not comprehending the intricacies of what he is asserting.

He is saying that SCOTUS is interpreting the law that was passed by Congress UNDER the Constitution, NOT interpreting the Constitution itself.

You will notice in Article III that there is this little phrase which says "...arising under this Constitution...". "Under this Constitution" is not the Constitution itself.

Same thing. If a court says Congress passed an unconstitutional law for which it had no authority, it requires interpreting the powers of Congress as delegated or implied in the Constitution. That is interpreting the Constitution itself just as much as "arising under the Constitution."

It is interpreting the Constitution because it determines the powers of Congress sometimes for many years in the future. If the court says Congress has the power to create a national bank is very different from saying it does not have that power. It is determining what the Constitution allows Congress to do. Claiming it is only interpreting what arises under the Constitution is no different since both determine whether Congress can create a national bank.

It makes no difference in practice.

 

[Flash]

No, it isn't. It is interpreting the law passed by Congress and ONLY the law passed by Congress, to see if it complies with the Constitution. it cannot interpret the Constitution itself.

To know if something complies with the Constitution requires interpreting the Constitution itself. If the court says Congress cannot pass a law it is saying it does not comply with the Constitution. If a court later changes that ruling and says Congress does have authority to pass that law it has interpreted the Constitution differently than the earlier court.
In the later case Congress has more constitutional authority than the first case.

 

[Into the Night]

Same thing.

It is NOT the same thing. False equivalence fallacy.

If a court says Congress passed an unconstitutional law for which it had no authority, it requires interpreting the powers of Congress as delegated or implied in the Constitution.

No, it does not. It only requires interpreting a law they passed.

That is interpreting the Constitution itself just as much as "arising under the Constitution."

No, it isn't. Congress is not the Constitution. The Constitution is not Congress. False equivalence fallacy.

It is interpreting the Constitution because it determines the powers of Congress

It is not determining the powers of Congress.

sometimes for many years in the future.

Time is irrelevant here.

If the court says Congress has the power to create a national bank

It does. Congress can create whatever bank it wants. It can't compel you to use it.

is very different from saying it does not have that power.

It does have that power.

It is determining what the Constitution allows Congress to do.

It is not. It is determining whether a law passed by Congress conforms to the Constitution.

Claiming it is only interpreting what arises under the Constitution is no different since both determine whether Congress can create a national bank.

It is different. Congress can create national bank.

It makes no difference in practice.

Yes it does. You are continuing to insist on false equivalencies, and you are continuing to ignore the powers granted to Congress.

 

[Into the Night]

To know if something complies with the Constitution requires interpreting the Constitution itself.

WRONG. The only thing being interpreted is the law of Congress.

 

[domer76]

The two socks, gfm and Into the Night getting their asses kicked.

 

[Flash]

WRONG. The only thing being interpreted is the law of Congress.

Wrong. You are interpreting whether the law of Congress is compliant with the Constitution. To do so requires interpreting the Constitution itself in order to understand its meaning.

Read or listen to a Supreme Court case and you will see the justices arguing about the meaning of the Constitution. That is interpreting it.

 

[gfm7175]

Same thing.

Two completely different things.

If a court says Congress passed an unconstitutional law for which it had no authority, it requires interpreting the powers of Congress as delegated or implied in the Constitution.

No, it doesn't require interpreting the powers of Congress. It requires interpreting the law which Congress passed.

That is interpreting the Constitution itself just as much as "arising under the Constitution."

No, it is not. A law passed by Congress is not the same thing as the US Constitution.

It is interpreting the Constitution

No, it is not.

because it determines the powers of Congress

A law which Congress passed is not determining the powers of Congress.

sometimes for many years in the future.

Irrelevant.

If the court says Congress has the power to create a national bank is very different from saying it does not have that power.

Congress has that power.

It is determining what the Constitution allows Congress to do.

No, it is determining whether or not a law passed by Congress adheres to the US Constitution. The law passed by Congress is being interpreted, NOT the US Constitution itself.

Claiming it is only interpreting what arises under the Constitution is no different since both determine whether Congress can create a national bank.

It is completely different. Your argument on this interpretation issue is a false equivalence. Congress has the power to create a national bank.

It makes no difference in practice.

Yes, it does.

 

[gfm7175]

The two socks, gfm and Into the Night getting their asses kicked.

DOMER!!!!!!!!!!! I just KNEW you'd be back for more!!!

So how long did the "buh bye" last? ONE day, maybe??


Have you learned what 'yes' and 'no' mean yet?

 

[gfm7175]

The two socks, gfm and Into the Night getting their asses kicked.

I also find it interesting that you shortened my name to 'gfm', yet you were able to fully type out 'Into The Night', even though it is a longer name than 'gfm7175'... Any reason for that?

 

[Flash]

Two completely different things.

No, it doesn't require interpreting the powers of Congress. It requires interpreting the law which Congress passed.

No, it is not. A law passed by Congress is not the same thing as the US Constitution.

No, it is not.

A law which Congress passed is not determining the powers of Congress.

Irrelevant.

Congress has that power.

No, it is determining whether or not a law passed by Congress adheres to the US Constitution. The law passed by Congress is being interpreted, NOT the US Constitution itself.

It is completely different. Your argument on this interpretation issue is a false equivalence. Congress has the power to create a national bank.

Yes, it does.

You are confusing the power of judicial review with Article III powers. Article III gives the courts the power to interpret federal laws when there is a controversy. That is a large part of the court's cases. That involves interpreting the law itself and does not determine the constitutionality of that law because judicial review is a power not contained in the Constitution.

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare acts of Congress, the president, or the states unconstitutional. To do that requires interpreting the Constitution. The court hears relatively few cases on the constitutionality of a law.

 

[Into the Night]

The two socks, gfm and Into the Night getting their asses kicked.

Nothing like the two socks, domer76 and StonebyStone.

 

[Into the Night]

You are confusing the power of judicial review with Article III powers.

You are still trying to place the courts ABOVE the Constitution.

Article III gives the courts the power to interpret federal laws when there is a controversy.

True.

That is a large part of the court's cases.

Not really, but that is irrelevant.

That involves interpreting the law itself and does not determine the constitutionality of that law because judicial review is a power not contained in the Constitution.

Yes it is. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare acts of Congress, the president, or the states unconstitutional.

Among many other things, that is part of it.

To do that requires interpreting the Constitution.

No, it doesn't. It only requires interpreting the act.

The court hears relatively few cases on the constitutionality of a law.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? Never mind, this is just as irrelevant as your conflicting statement.

 

[Flash]

Paradox. Which is it, dude? Never mind, this is just as irrelevant as your conflicting statement.

No paradox. There are few cases determining the constitutionality of a law or fact. There are many cases interpreting the meaning of a federal law.

Interpreting what the provisions a federal law means is very different than deciding if Congress/president had the constitutional authority to enact that law. If Article III gave the courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of a law the court would not need to give itself that power in Marbury.

 

[Into the Night]

No paradox.

You can't make a paradox go away by simply denying it. You must choose ONE and only one of the conflicting arguments and utterly reject the other. That is the only way you can clear a paradox.

There are few cases determining the constitutionality of a law or fact. There are many cases interpreting the meaning of a federal law.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many cases of a particular kind occur.

Interpreting what the provisions a federal law means is very different than deciding if Congress/president had the constitutional authority to enact that law.

Not really. False dichotomy fallacy.

If Article III gave the courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of a law the court would not need to give itself that power in Marbury.

No court can give itself that power. No court can change the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Flash]

Not really. False dichotomy fallacy.

No court can give itself that power. No court can change the Constitution of the United States.

Calling something a false dichotomy (or some other kind of fallacy) does not make it one. Interpreting the meaning of provisions within a federal law is not the same thing as determining whether Congress had the constitutional authority to pass that law. If you think that is a false dichotomy you are not grasping the difference.

If you don't think the court gave itself power in Marbury v. Madison you are not familiar with the case.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

What gun "control" laws do not "limit" or undermine one's right to bear arms?

WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT YOU IDIOTS THINK ABOUT GUN CONTROL!

Just about everything in this world is controlled.

And since guns are one of the most dangerous things in the world that kills people every 3 seconds in our country alone, GUNS SHOULD EVEN HAVE MANY MORE CONTROLS ON THEM.

Automobiles are controlled, and you have to have a license to operate them on public roads, they have to be registered by their serial numbers, and there has to be a record of their sales, and it must be reported through tax affidavits, and mentally retarded people are not allowed to drive them, and there are penalties and fines for not following the law with them- and Guns should have all of those very same controls!