Absolute Brilliance

Philip19 · 08-01-2004, 12:12 PM

No idea why my first topic was closed.

One: this is a current event. Two, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the fed being over the state. Three, fed vs. state doesn't even have anything to do with this. Four, unprecedented is not the same as unconstitutional.

Five, it already passed the House, so I guess they don't care about law school. And six, read the Constitution: the Supreme Court has very little original jurisdiction (some state disputes, Cases affecting Ambassadors, and public ministers). The Defense of Marriage Act falls under appellate jurisdiction, which is constitutionally under Congress, as are the inferior courts.

Quote:

A day before Congress left town for a six-week vacation, the House passed the Marriage Protection Act 233 to 194. This bill would deny "all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act."

DOMA is the 1996 law that says no state need recognize same-sex unions established by other states.

If this bill gets passed the Senate, we wouldn't necessarily need a Federal Marriage Amendment. And the one state, Mass., to legalize gay marriage could ban it in 2005 under its own amendment.

This would open the gates for real reform in this country. Roe vs. Wade could be overturned, and States could be given back their just authority.

[ August 01, 2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

Link47 · 08-01-2004, 12:53 PM

Except that the Supreme Court can overrule anything that the Congress passes and the President signs.

Flamethrower Mario · 08-01-2004, 02:23 PM

It's gonna have a hard time in the senate.

Philip19 · 08-01-2004, 03:27 PM

No, the Supreme Court can not. I just explained that.

It'll have a hard time in the Senate, but only because you need 60 procedural votes to get to the up-or-down, substantive vote.

imported_ · 08-01-2004, 03:54 PM

Uh, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court could overturn the MPA, and thusly become able to overturn the DOMA. As long as someone keeps appealing decisions, it will make it to the Supreme Court.

DOMA is in and of itself ridiculous, because of the Full Faith and Credit clause, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states,

Quote:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

DOMA is thusly blatantly unconstitutional, as is the MPA.

Philip19 · 08-01-2004, 04:04 PM

If someone keeps appealing, the law will say that the Supreme Court can't hear the case. Nor any other federal court.

What one State issues cannot be rejected by another State on the basis of being issued in that other State. It can be rejected on the basis that such an institution or license is not honored in the other.

If Missouri licenses a man to carry a concealed weapon, Kansas has every right to have its own standards and ban all guns. What it cannot do is issue its own concealed weapons license of identical or near identical qualification and reject his on the sole basis that it's from Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, or where ever.

(Actually, the 2nd amendment denies it the right to outright ban all guns, but it's an example)

[ August 01, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

imported_ · 08-01-2004, 04:11 PM

You can't pass a law that says "the Supreme Court can't knock this down!" That's ridiculous. That entirely destroys the system of checks and balances. Congress cannot exempt itself from the checks of other branches of government - it's like passing a law that says "this doesn't need the president's signature!" or better yet, a law that says "this only needs 10 votes to pass!".

Congress could only do such a thing through a Constitutional Amendment.

And besides, even if it were legal, the MPA only protects the DOMA from the court's judicial review, not itself. So the Court could knock down the MPA, and then with it disabled, knock down DOMA.

Philip19 · 08-01-2004, 04:15 PM

Having one unelected branch of government have an absolute and complete mandate over the others, as well as itself, completely destroys the system of Checks and Balances.

The law in the end is obviously what everyone by his own reason obeys. The MPA will pass that test; "this doesn't need Kerry to sign it" wouldn't (though that is a pretty cool idea, now that you mention it).

It also protects itself from being struck down.

What if the Supreme Court decides the constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? Or void of any real effect?

[ August 01, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

Philip19 · 08-01-2004, 08:46 PM

[ignore post]

[ August 01, 2004, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

Link47 · 08-01-2004, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip19:
What if the Supreme Court decides the constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? Or void of any real effect?

If it is in the constitution, it cannot be unconstitutional. Thats why there is the push for a marriage ammendment, so that the Supreme Court can't overrule it.

Philip19 · 08-01-2004, 10:05 PM

Look at the tenth amendment. You can hack through anything.

People seem to have no trouble calling part of the Constitution 'unconstitutional.' Because the power to limit the courts is in the constitution.

[ August 01, 2004, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

Nick · 08-01-2004, 11:52 PM

Your lack of understanding of the basic laws of this country is quite disturbing.

One: It won't go anywhere.
Two: Except that it does, since it establishes Equal Protection and applies all of the protections of the US Constitution to the states.
Three: You said states could get their "Proper authority" back, and I say that it will not happen due to the legal structure of this country since Marbury v. Madison.
Four: In this case it clearly is.
Five: It doesn't matter. Congress and other legislative bodies constantly pass unconstitutional laws. Line-item veto, partial birth abortion, restrictions on whatever, sodomy laws, etc.
Six: Keyword: ORIGINAL. Marbury v. Madison. Maybe you've heard of it. Changed powers. Dredd Scott furthered this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/224/
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...k/marbury.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...democrac/9.htm

Law is unconstitutional on its face, thus not valid.

Supreme court can only rule on existing laws and interpret existing laws, and they have no power to enforce said rulings. Congress can pass and compose legislation, as well as approve and write the budget, but cannot execute the law. The Executive controls the military, signs the laws, and executes the laws. TAKE A BASIC GOVERNMENT CLASS.

Idiot. Amendments cannot be found as Unconstitutional as they are part of the constitution. That's why we've had things like prohibition, and why people can't suddenly challenge various governmental powers (taxes, equal protection).

The 10th doesn't say "YOU CAN IGNORE THE PRECEDING DOCUMENT" like you seem to think it does, and that the powers of judicial review were derived from the constitution, and that overthrowing the balance and separation of power is not in anyone's best interests.

Again, take a basic government class and don't ever think of lawschool.

08-01-2004, 12:53 PM	#2
Link47 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: USA Posts: 8,377 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 27,705.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 28,205.00 Donate	Except that the Supreme Court can overrule anything that the Congress passes and the President signs.

08-01-2004, 02:23 PM	#3
Flamethrower Mario Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 1,973 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,006.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,506.00 Donate	It's gonna have a hard time in the senate.

08-01-2004, 03:27 PM	#4
Philip19 I <3 LIBERALS! VOTE KERRY! Standing up for my man Lincoln and banning this loser. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: VA Posts: 90 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,073.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,573.00 Donate	No, the Supreme Court can not. I just explained that. It'll have a hard time in the Senate, but only because you need 60 procedural votes to get to the up-or-down, substantive vote.

08-01-2004, 04:04 PM	#6
Philip19 I <3 LIBERALS! VOTE KERRY! Standing up for my man Lincoln and banning this loser. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: VA Posts: 90 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,073.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,573.00 Donate	If someone keeps appealing, the law will say that the Supreme Court can't hear the case. Nor any other federal court. What one State issues cannot be rejected by another State on the basis of being issued in that other State. It can be rejected on the basis that such an institution or license is not honored in the other. If Missouri licenses a man to carry a concealed weapon, Kansas has every right to have its own standards and ban all guns. What it cannot do is issue its own concealed weapons license of identical or near identical qualification and reject his on the sole basis that it's from Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, or where ever. (Actually, the 2nd amendment denies it the right to outright ban all guns, but it's an example) [ August 01, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

08-01-2004, 04:11 PM	#7
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,597.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,097.00 Donate	You can't pass a law that says "the Supreme Court can't knock this down!" That's ridiculous. That entirely destroys the system of checks and balances. Congress cannot exempt itself from the checks of other branches of government - it's like passing a law that says "this doesn't need the president's signature!" or better yet, a law that says "this only needs 10 votes to pass!". Congress could only do such a thing through a Constitutional Amendment. And besides, even if it were legal, the MPA only protects the DOMA from the court's judicial review, not itself. So the Court could knock down the MPA, and then with it disabled, knock down DOMA.

08-01-2004, 04:15 PM	#8
Philip19 I <3 LIBERALS! VOTE KERRY! Standing up for my man Lincoln and banning this loser. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: VA Posts: 90 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,073.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,573.00 Donate	Having one unelected branch of government have an absolute and complete mandate over the others, as well as itself, completely destroys the system of Checks and Balances. The law in the end is obviously what everyone by his own reason obeys. The MPA will pass that test; "this doesn't need Kerry to sign it" wouldn't (though that is a pretty cool idea, now that you mention it). It also protects itself from being struck down. What if the Supreme Court decides the constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? Or void of any real effect? [ August 01, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

08-01-2004, 08:46 PM	#9
Philip19 I <3 LIBERALS! VOTE KERRY! Standing up for my man Lincoln and banning this loser. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: VA Posts: 90 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,073.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,573.00 Donate	[ignore post] [ August 01, 2004, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

08-01-2004, 10:05 PM	#11
Philip19 I <3 LIBERALS! VOTE KERRY! Standing up for my man Lincoln and banning this loser. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: VA Posts: 90 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,073.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,573.00 Donate	Look at the tenth amendment. You can hack through anything. People seem to have no trouble calling part of the Constitution 'unconstitutional.' Because the power to limit the courts is in the constitution. [ August 01, 2004, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

08-01-2004, 11:52 PM	#12
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 11,000.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 11,500.00 Donate	Your lack of understanding of the basic laws of this country is quite disturbing. One: It won't go anywhere. Two: Except that it does, since it establishes Equal Protection and applies all of the protections of the US Constitution to the states. Three: You said states could get their "Proper authority" back, and I say that it will not happen due to the legal structure of this country since Marbury v. Madison. Four: In this case it clearly is. Five: It doesn't matter. Congress and other legislative bodies constantly pass unconstitutional laws. Line-item veto, partial birth abortion, restrictions on whatever, sodomy laws, etc. Six: Keyword: ORIGINAL. Marbury v. Madison. Maybe you've heard of it. Changed powers. Dredd Scott furthered this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/224/ http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...k/marbury.html http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...democrac/9.htm Law is unconstitutional on its face, thus not valid. Supreme court can only rule on existing laws and interpret existing laws, and they have no power to enforce said rulings. Congress can pass and compose legislation, as well as approve and write the budget, but cannot execute the law. The Executive controls the military, signs the laws, and executes the laws. TAKE A BASIC GOVERNMENT CLASS. Idiot. Amendments cannot be found as Unconstitutional as they are part of the constitution. That's why we've had things like prohibition, and why people can't suddenly challenge various governmental powers (taxes, equal protection). The 10th doesn't say "YOU CAN IGNORE THE PRECEDING DOCUMENT" like you seem to think it does, and that the powers of judicial review were derived from the constitution, and that overthrowing the balance and separation of power is not in anyone's best interests. Again, take a basic government class and don't ever think of lawschool.