Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Don't be an idiot. I certainly didn't defend the constitutionality of the law in the other thread. I was arguing the moral imperative of giving DC representation.

That was my point. We all agreed it was unconstitutional.

btw, I Just read Tidewater and think it's a huge stretch to extend it to the question of representation, for several reasons.

[Ramo]

I said that I didn't think the law was constitutional, not that the question was trivial. Pretty important distinction.

[Drake Tungsten]

IMO your current position on the subject is "partisan tool."

Isn't that his default setting?

[Kuciwalker]

I think you can bring arguments for either side. I also think that the arguments for one of the sides are vastly weaker than the other.

xpost

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because the courts aren't infallible, duh.

But they are the final arbiters. They decide what is and what is not Constitutional. To state that Pelosi has done something which is violative of the Constitution, even though there are plenty of reason why the law may pass through the Supreme Court (one that Ramo pointed out above) is, IMO, being silly. You may think the law doesn't pass muster, but that doesn't mean the law is violative of the Constitution, at least not until the hammer is lowered.

I've learned my lesson from President Bush being able to do things that I thought were against the Constitution, but the courts didn't see it that way. Should have shown everyone that no one violates the Constitution until the courts say so.

Oh come on. If Congress passes a bill that's unconstitutional it's violating the Constitution. And by extension we can say those who voted for it were violating the Constitution. Obviously there aren't personal consequences to the individual legislators, apart from possible bad publicity.

Every Congressman takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, as does the President. If simply passing a law that gets struck down is violative of the Constitution, then every single one has violated their oath of office.

Obviously we don't look at it that way. Congress is not violating the Constitution if it legally passes a bill that later is struck down. Congress may violate the Constitution if it engages in activities that are declared unconstitutional. Passing a bill will never be an unconstitutional activity. The substance of the bill is irrelevant; it is the action undertaken that counts.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But they are the final arbiters. They decide what is and what is not Constitutional. To state that Pelosi has done something which is violative of the Constitution, even though there are plenty of reason why the law may pass through the Supreme Court (one that Ramo pointed out above) is, IMO, being silly.

And IMO the "the Supreme Court is always right" argument is a stupid cop-out people use when they don't feel like actually defending the constitutionality of something. I guess all legal scholars ought to just go home, since they aren't on the Supreme Court.

You may think the law doesn't pass muster, but that doesn't mean the law is violative of the Constitution

Of course not. It's the words of the Constitution that do that.

I've learned my lesson from President Bush being able to do things that I thought were against the Constitution, but the courts didn't see it that way. Should have shown everyone that no one violates the Constitution until the courts say so.

It should have shown everyone that they're fallible, and so are the courts.

[q]Every Congressman takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, as does the President. If simply passing a law that gets struck down is violative of the Constitution, then every single one has violated their oath of office.

Obviously we don't look at it that way. Congress is not violating the Constitution if it legally passes a bill that later is struck down. Congress may violate the Constitution if it engages in activities that are declared unconstitutional. Passing a bill will never be an unconstitutional activity. The substance of the bill is irrelevant; it is the action undertaken that counts.

Now you're just being a pedantic ***** - I bet you did well in law school.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And IMO the "the Supreme Court is always right" argument is a stupid cop-out people use when they don't feel like actually defending the constitutionality of something. I guess all legal scholars ought to just go home, since they aren't on the Supreme Court.

The facts of our system "is a stupid cop-out"? Well, that's a new one.

Considering you've already tarred someone as "plainly violating" the Constitution for backing a bill that you find dubious, I figured a quick lesson may have been in order.

Legal scholars tend to influence the courts... they get cited in decisions an awful lot.

Now you're just being a pedantic ***** - I bet you did well in law school.

I note you didn't answer the main point. If the Congressmen are doing something that violates the Constitution, aren't they violating their oath of office, which states that they will uphold the Constitution?

[Ramo]

Isn't that his default setting?

That's rich coming from you.

I also think that the arguments for one of the sides are vastly weaker than the other.

Not especially. There's a very solid basis for it based on Tidewater.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's rich coming from you.

You probably don't even know what party I'm a member of...

[DinoDoc]

UMP?

[Ramo]

I don't really care. Your party registration in no way mitigates the hackery of your posts.

[Kuciwalker]

The facts of our system "is a stupid cop-out"? Well, that's a new one.

When they're only brought out when a poster doesn't feel like actually defending something, yes.

The facts of our system are that the current Supreme Court decisions have legal force. They aren't that the Supreme Court's interpretation is automatically the correct one, or that they are infallible. This is obvious because the Supreme Court can reverse its own decisions.

If two legal scholars were arguing the proper interpretation of the Constitution, and one said "I think Roe was an incorrect decision," would the other say "tough luck, the Supreme Court decided! You lose!" Or would, perhaps, they actually debate the merits of the decision?

And would legal scholars refrain from considering the constitutionality of something until the Court has ruled? They should just keep quiet, and then accept the majority opinion as gospel?

Considering you've already tarred someone as "plainly violating" the Constitution for backing a bill that you find dubious, I figured a quick lesson may have been in order.

And I think you haven't provided a single legal argument in this thread other than "lol supreme court owns you LOL".

Legal scholars tend to influence the courts... they get cited in decisions an awful lot.

We're arguing in an Internet forum, Imran. "Influence on the real world" is not a valid criterion for acceptable subjects for debate.

I note you didn't answer the main point. If the Congressmen are doing something that violates the Constitution, aren't they violating their oath of office, which states that they will uphold the Constitution?

I did address the main point. Your assertion is nothing more than a pedantic attempt to distract from the inanity of your main argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Not especially. There's a very solid basis for it based on Tidewater.

Only if you ignore half the decision.

[Kuciwalker]

Jesus, Imran, it's this ****ing simple: Pelosi endorses a law I think is plainly unconstitutional. If you think that's an invalid criticism you're too dumb to be worth arguing with. Go play with Ludd or someone else who's needlessly contrarian.

[Drake Tungsten]

UMP?

Why are you helping him?