Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

zymurgy said:
false.

If this were true, you could find an example of the 2nd amendment limiting the power of a state prior to incorporation
Click to expand...

There is no 'incorporation' that you describe. The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States as well as the federal government. Examples can not only be found in State constitutions, but in history as well.
 
zymurgy said:
your ostrich debate style of sticking your head in the sand is comical

Palko v. Connecticut
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has no authority to change any constitution. This decision was unconstitutional.

Ostriches don't stick their head in the sand (despite being relatively stupid birds). You probably do though.
 
Into the Night said:
Ostriches don't stick their head in the sand; though you probably do.
Click to expand...

derp derp

Ostriches dig shallow holes in the sand to serve as nests for their eggs.

so yes, they do stick their head in the sand - just not out of fear

you are a fucking joke dude. you argue like a retarded child
 
zymurgy said:
your opinion is wrong.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is not an opinion.
zymurgy said:
You are a retard that does not understand the constitution either before the 14th, or after it.
Click to expand...
The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States. You just want to discard it.
zymurgy said:
just a retard with a keyboard.
Click to expand...
Insults do not make your case, dude, nor can it be used to cancel the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
I am not changing the Constitution. I am only quoting it.
Click to expand...

you don't understand what you are quoting

thousands of examples of states doing things that would violate the 2nd amendment prior to incorporation exist in the hisotry books - and this is because the 2nd amendment only applied to the Federal Government

that you don't know something that every law student in the country is aware of is comical. you are a moron. a clown. a court jester. but not a scholar
 
zymurgy said:
you don't understand what you are quoting
Click to expand...
The Constitution of the United States speaks for itself, moron.
zymurgy said:
thousands of examples of states doing things that would violate the 2nd amendment prior to incorporation exist in the hisotry books
Click to expand...
There is no 'incorporation'. There are thousands of example of States doing things that violate the 2nd amendment today.
zymurgy said:
and this is because the 2nd amendment only applied to the Federal Government
Click to expand...
No. It applies to both the federal government AND the States. It always has.
zymurgy said:
that you don't know something that every law student in the country is aware of is comical.
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for every law student. You can only speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. The Constitution is not law students.
zymurgy said:
you are a moron. a clown. a court jester. but not a scholar
Click to expand...
Your insults and your chanting get you nowhere.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Is there a ruling from the high court on the subject of grand juries?

In fact this is timely as the Court denied a writ of certiorari in February on this question. The 9th Circuit ruled that Idaho does not need to employ a grand jury, and it was appealed to the SCOTUS, but the court declined to hear the case.

The thing about our justice system, is that before the court can make a judgement on constitutional issues, a case must be presented to the courts.

My best Google skills show that no cases has been heard on the use of grand juries by the high court.
Click to expand...

"Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884),[SUP][1][/SUP] was a landmark case[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments, as distinguished from the federal government, to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions."

The court probably declined to hear the Idaho case because it was already settled in Hurtado and they did not choose to revisit the issue. The court is often reluctant to issue decisions that will make major changes in state criminal law systems.
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States. So has the 3rd amendment.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm talking about the actual law as determined by Supreme Court cases and not your opinion of the Constitution.

The 2nd did not apply to the states until McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.

Since the states have not quartered troops in homes there has never been a case to make it applicable. There was almost a case when a state put troops in the barracks of prison guards in order to put down a riot, but a settlement was reached before it climbed the courts.
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. The Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to change or modify the Constitution in any way.
The 5th amendment DOES apply to the States and has always done so.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is in direct conflict with actual law, court decisions, and constitutional history. Parts of the 5th amendment were made applicable to the states.

The self-incrimination clause of the 5th was made applicable to the states in (1964) and double-jeopardy in 1969 but in 1883 the court ruled grand jury indictments are not required by the states.

In 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore the court ruled the Bill of Rights did not extend to the states. This was constitutional law until N.Y. v. Gitlow in 1925 which began the incorporation process.

The Supreme Court just modified the meaning of the Constitution last week in the cases involving affirmative action, free speech/religion......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top