- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I believe many Americans have a functional misunderstanding
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:26 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:26 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
If you cant honestly claim that its being used disingenuously by many on the left, you just confirm what most already believe.
I never said that. It's used similarly to things like "infrastructure", "globalism", and "lawfare"
1
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:26 am to Flats
quote:
A far greater danger is a political judiciary, which can effectively "change" the constitution with a mere written opinion.
Well the irony of this is that they gave themselves that power, too, in a court ruling
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 9:27 am
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I never said that
Then actually, for one single time, say what you mean.
For one time. Its aint hard. Just let your mind go.
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 9:28 am
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:28 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Then actually, for one single time, say what you mean.
I did Rog. You're asking me an unrelated question barely related to what I posted.
*ETA: and I answered
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 9:28 am
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well the irony of this is that they gave themselves that power, too, in a court ruling
But the other two branches could take it back, especially congress. They choose not to.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I did Rog.
The obfuscation queen
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:28 am to Flats
quote:
But the other two branches could take it back, especially congress. They choose not to.
Not at this point. You'd need a Constitutional amendment to do this.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not at this point. You'd need a Constitutional amendment to do this.
A Constitutional amendment wasn't needed for the power grab, I don't see why one is necessary to reverse it. Or the other two branches could ignore their rulings, it's not as if they have an organic enforcement agency.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:37 am to Flats
quote:
A Constitutional amendment wasn't needed for the power grab,
Well since Marbury was so soon after ratification, and I believe signatories participated in the litigation, the original intent is basically accepted as undisputed canon. It's de facto part of the constitution for this reason. Until originalism is completely discarded (which I don't think people on here would be happy with), it's law.
quote:
Or the other two branches could ignore their rulings, it's not as if they have an organic enforcement agency.
If we only hard one party this would be a useful strategy
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:37 am to Flats
quote:
A Constitutional amendment wasn't needed for the power grab, I don't see why one is necessary to reverse it.
Activists, not scholars run things now. Our laws are based on interpretation and are worthless.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well since Marbury was so soon after ratification, and I believe signatories participated in the litigation,....
So signatories on both sides participated in the litigation. If this is an appeal to special knowledge I don't see what it buys you.
quote:
the original intent is basically accepted as undisputed canon. It's de facto part of the constitution for this reason.
No shite, but there's no reason that has to be accepted in perpetuity.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:47 am to Flats
quote:
So signatories on both sides participated in the litigation. If this is an appeal to special knowledge I don't see what it buys you.
The originalist interpretation
Did you read Bruen? The court relied on lots of stuff that had nothing to do with law and content that pre-dated the Constitution itself.
quote:
but there's no reason that has to be accepted in perpetuity.
Then we have to reject originalism entirely. I don't think that's going to happen unless the court is packed with lefitsts (which will create its own problems that make originalism seem like child's games)
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:57 am to bleedsgarnet
Republic is a form of Democracy
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:59 am to bleedsgarnet
The US was a Constitutional Republic up to January 20, 2009, then it all changed...and changed QUICKLY.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 9:59 am to TigerBlazer
quote:
Republic is a form of Democracy
It can be, but not always is.
Republics can also function with appointments of representatives and not voting.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:02 am to TigerBlazer
quote:
Republic is a form of Democracy
A bastardized version.
Its an indirect democracy, which foils the meaning. Progs want a direct democracy.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:10 am to Tomatocantender
quote:
The US was a Constitutional Republic
Its the most accurate way to describe our federal system.
"Our Democracy" means jack shite. Theres a wide range of bullshite you can shoehorn into that category if youre dishonest.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:15 am to bleedsgarnet
This is really just a pointless argument. For the average person, the difference between a democracy and a republic is irrelevant when they step into the voting booth. Using the distinction between the two to prove another's political argument is invalid is simply an attempt to dismiss their argument without addressing their points.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then we have to reject originalism entirely.
No, we just reject your claim that judicial review is an originalist concept.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:38 am to Tomatocantender
quote:
The US was a Constitutional Republic up to January 20, 2009, then it all changed...and changed QUICKLY.
I believe the phrasing was "fundamentally transform".
Sadly, folks were blinded by the man's skin color thanks to one absentee parent, and it became verboten even to argue policy on grounds that the criticism was raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News