| Posted by | Message |
BTHog 
Arkansas Fan
Member since Jul 2012
7091 posts
| Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 9:40 am)
Without mentioning any specific cases, instead talking in just a generic sense do you agree or disagree that once the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of a law that their ruling is in fact a constitutional ruling whether you agree with the ruling or not?
It just seems like most people don't understand this concept; or they don't want to, instead preferring to pretend like the founding fathers would always agree with THEIR point of view , instead of admitting that we actually don't know where they would have stood; and in fact they knew this would be the case and that is why they provided for a Court .
Once the Supreme Court rules a law is constituional, the argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Agree or disagree?
Also, I'll add the flip side, if the Court rules that a law is unconstitutional. then the argument is likewise over. Agree or disagree?
|
| Back to top | Share on  |
udtiger 
LSU Fan
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2006
17958 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 9:44 am to BTHog)
quote:
Once the Supreme Court rules a law is constituional, the argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Agree or disagree?
Each branch has an obligation/duty to abide by the Constitution. Inherent in fullfilling that duty is determining whether a proposed law is, or is not, constitutional. Ceding the decision to a single branch, as has been the case for well over 100 years, is dereliction of duty.
Also, if the SC's opinion is "final", then Brown v. Board of Education is a nullity as the Plessey decision previous spoke to the issue of "separate but equal."
|
| Back to top | |
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
38216 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 9:45 am to BTHog)
quote:
Once the Supreme Court rules a law is constituional, the argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Agree or disagree?
You are seriously retarded.* shite man, there are numerous examples where the court has even reversed itself.
*Basing this on your ignorance in the OT thread that inspired this poli board thread, as well as other general idiocy you post.
This post was edited on 12/28 at 9:47 am
|
| Back to top | |
LSURussian
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2005
63142 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 9:54 am to BTHog)
The SC has the authority under the constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws, so when it rules, that is the final decision, unless.....
1) the court reverses itself later, or,
2) a constitutional amendment is adopted to make the formerly unconstitutional law constitutional.
|
| Back to top | |
BTHog
Arkansas Fan
Member since Jul 2012
7091 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 9:59 am to LSURussian)
quote:
The SC has the authority under the constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws, so when it rules, that is the final decision, unless.....
1) the court reverses itself later, or,
2) a constitutional amendment is adopted to make the formerly unconstitutional law constitutional.
of course every "rule" has an exception. Guess you found two to this one.
|
| Back to top | |
BTHog
Arkansas Fan
Member since Jul 2012
7091 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:02 am to WikiTiger)
quote:
You are seriously retarded.* shite man, there are numerous examples where the court has even reversed itself.
What does that have to do with the underlying point?
If a court later reverses itself that doesn't change the fact that UNTIL such reversal, the original finding is Constitutional. True or False?
Damn man ANY Constitutional amendment CAN be reversed, that doesn't mean that UNTIL such time they are the ruling Amendments.
|
| Back to top | |
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
4705 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:09 am to BTHog)
quote:
Once the Supreme Court rules a law is constituional, the argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Agree or disagree?
The supreme court has been a fricking joke for ages, so no I don't defer to them as the grand arbiter of constitutionality, just because men with guns will enforce their opinions.
|
| Back to top | |
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Savannah, GA
Member since Oct 2008
23929 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:11 am to BTHog)
quote:
Once the Supreme Court rules a law is constituional, the argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Agree or disagree?
WTF?
No one with a brain would say "agree" to that.
The court has ruled MANY TIMES in history in a way that people fought against and eventually, the court shifted.
You just think people should stop fighting for what they believe in once the court has ruled?
Are you a fricking idiot?
|
| Back to top | |
LSURussian
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2005
63142 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:12 am to BTHog)
quote:
of course every "rule" has an exception. Guess you found two to this one.
Those two points are really NOT exceptions.
Your OP seems to imply that once the SC rules, it's over. We have to accept their decision, period.
That's just not true.
If it were true, separate but equal schools for the races would still be the law of the land. So would slavery.
|
| Back to top | |
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Savannah, GA
Member since Oct 2008
23929 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:13 am to BTHog)
quote:
If a court later reverses itself that doesn't change the fact that UNTIL such reversal, the original finding is Constitutional. True or False?
But how would it every reverse itself it every "adult" simply stopped arguing once the court made a decision?
Jeebus man. You're a fricking idiot.
|
| Back to top | |
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Savannah, GA
Member since Oct 2008
23929 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:15 am to LSURussian)
quote:
Your OP seems to imply that once the SC rules, it's over. We have to accept their decision, period. That's just not true.
He seems to think that it might be possible for a court to reverse itself later even if every adult just shut up and stopped arguing.
Well. Who the frick would even bring the case that caused the reversal then? Everyone would've already given up under his moronic point of view.
Goddamned. This has got to be BY FAR the dumbest OP premise in the history of TD.
|
| Back to top | |
theOG 
Oklahoma Fan
Member since Feb 2010
3145 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:16 am to BTHog)
quote:
If a court later reverses itself that doesn't change the fact that UNTIL such reversal, the original finding is Constitutional. True or False?
Damn man ANY Constitutional amendment CAN be reversed, that doesn't mean that UNTIL such time they are the ruling Amendments.
if people would have just given up and stopped arguing then the court would never have reversed itself. it's not like they sit around and create things to rule on out of thin air. before anything gets to them hundreds and thousands of hours have been spent "arguing" about the constitutionality of whatever it is they are ruling on.
|
| Back to top | |
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Savannah, GA
Member since Oct 2008
23929 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:19 am to theOG)
quote:
if people would have just given up and stopped arguing then the court would never have reversed itself. it's not like they sit around and create things to rule on out of thin air. before anything gets to them hundreds and thousands of hours have been spent "arguing" about the constitutionality of whatever it is they are ruling on.
You seriously have to wonder if that dumb frick is like 5 years old.
|
| Back to top | |
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
4705 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:20 am to ShortyRob)
quote:
Goddamned. This has got to be BY FAR the dumbest OP premise in the history of TD.
He thinks unless you are "childish" you will defer to the law of the land as just.
He's a former cop or something, so his opinions are probably as developed as you would think a cops would be.
|
| Back to top | |
LSU lilly
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2010
8129 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:42 am to BTHog)
Obviously disagree. There is a reason why SCOTUS reverses their own decisions. This was a silly thread.
This post was edited on 12/28 at 10:43 am
|
| Back to top | |
sweetbobber
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2012
268 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 10:57 am to Turbeauxdog)
quote:
He thinks unless you are "childish" you will defer to the law of the land as just.
He's a former cop or something, so his opinions are probably as developed as you would think a cops would be.
Yea he tried the "child" accusation with me on the OT. Sorry but the I'm rubber you're glue arguement is for morons, and he clearly is one.
The original arguement is about the constitutionality of DWI checkpoints. He states that SCOTUS has ruled on it and therefore we should lay down and accept it. I disagree.
|
| Back to top | |
BTHog
Arkansas Fan
Member since Jul 2012
7091 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 11:36 am to LSU lilly)
quote:
There is a reason why SCOTUS reverses their own decisions.
and that is usually b/c the OPINIONS that make up the SCOTUS change.
That doesn't change the fact that if they rule on the constitutionality of a law then that either makes that law constitutional at THAT time unless and until either they reverse themselves or an amendment making said law unconstitutional is passed.
|
| Back to top | |
Merck 
Alabama Fan
Tuscaloosa
Member since Nov 2009
759 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 11:48 am to BTHog)
quote:
That doesn't change the fact that if they rule on the constitutionality of a law then that either makes that law constitutional at THAT time unless and until either they reverse themselves or an amendment making said law unconstitutional is passed.
But this is what you really asked: quote:
Once the Supreme Court rules a law is constituional, the argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional. Agree or disagree?
If the "argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional" then who is going to challenge the constitutionality of the previous ruling? How does the court reverse itself or an amendment get made if no one is allowed to argue against it?
Have you figured out why you're wrong yet?
|
| Back to top | |
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
38216 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 11:54 am to Merck)
quote:
If the "argument is over and an adult should stop arguing that the law is unconstitutional" then who is going to challenge the constitutionality of the previous ruling? How does the court reverse itself or an amendment get made if no one is allowed to argue against it?
Have you figured out why you're wrong yet?
Not only that, but what he also fails to acknowledge is that the mere existence of court reversals automatically calls into question the legitimacy of the court itself.
|
| Back to top | |
Athanatos 
Vanderbilt Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
5594 posts
| re: Is it Constitutional? (Posted on 12/28/12 at 12:14 pm to BTHog)
The Court already has created the analysis of res judicata under Planned Parenthood v. Casey to decide whether to overturn past precedent. It's not like the past decisions were necessarily wrong, but circumstances change requiring a different ruling. This discussion exhibits a flawed perspective on the nature of jurisprudence.
|
| Back to top | |
