• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

I understand that when you dodge questions, it means you got pwned

Are SCOTUS decisions ever unconstitutional?

Again, I never made that claim. Why would I answer questions that have nothing to do with me?
 
Again, I never made that claim. Why would I answer questions that have nothing to do with me?

It's a question, and you won't answer it because you know the answer will demonstrate how wrong you are about the Commerce Clause, and the 1st and 13th amendments.

It's a simple question: Are SCOTUS decisions ever unconstitutional?
 
It's a question, and you won't answer it because you know the answer will demonstrate how wrong you are about the Commerce Clause, and the 1st and 13th amendments.

It's a simple question: Are SCOTUS decisions ever unconstitutional?

:yawn: Try reading.

Do you understand the difference between legally binding and correct?

Do you?
 
:yawn: Try reading.



Do you?

It's funny how hard you try to dodge a question. Do you really think asking me a question will make me forget that you haven't answered mine? :lol:

Are SCOTUS decisions ever unconstitutional?
 
It's funny how hard you try to dodge a question. Do you really think asking me a question will make me forget that you haven't answered mine? :lol:

Are SCOTUS decisions ever unconstitutional?

I already told you there is no reason for me to answer that question since I never said they were. Do you understand the difference between SC ruling being legally binding and SC ruling actually being correct?
 
I already told you there is no reason for me to answer that question since I never said they were. Do you understand the difference between SC ruling being legally binding and SC ruling actually being correct?

Since you won't deny that SCOTUS decisions are always constitutional, then there is no doubt that it is constitutional to apply the Commerce Clause to beyond "trade disputes between the listed members" and that the CC sometime does trump the 1st and 13th Amendments because SCOTUS decided that it is constitutional to do so.

Therefore, you were wrong to claim otherwise.
 
Since you won't deny that SCOTUS decisions are always constitutional, then there is no doubt that it is constitutional to apply the Commerce Clause to beyond "trade disputes between the listed members" and that the CC sometime does trump the 1st and 13th Amendments because SCOTUS decided that it is constitutional to do so.

Therefore, you were wrong to claim otherwise.

Nope. Again, that is not how it works. You don't seem to understand how the constitution works.
 
Nope. Again, that is not how it works. You don't seem to understand how the constitution works.

That's it?

This is all you've got:
fingers-in-ears.jpg
 
Which makes them wrong.

In your opinion.

Actually, no. You can not hide behind the commerce clause when you are actively violating the 1st and 13th amendment.

Using the Commerce Clause in this case does not violate the 1st or 13 Amendment. It alters the context of the issue.

Why? The reason the words were written does not change and nor does the power behind them. What could possibly be the reason to ignore intent?

Intent is contextual. As context changes, intent becomes less relevant and more generalized.
 
Last edited:
In your opinion.

No, basic reason. The point of the constitution is to keep the government inside a box, so whenever the SC tries to get the government out of its box by ignoring intent they are wrong.

Using the Commerce Clause in this case does not violate the 1st or 13 Amendment. It alters the context of the issue.

That is not what I meant. The 1st and 13th amendment are violated by the law itself, not the SC ruling. My point was that if the law violates the 1st and 13th amendment it is immaterial if it is falls under the commerce clause or not. This is due to the fact that in order to act on the commerce you must violate the 1st and 13th amendment. When the supreme court ignores the rights of the people and simply falls back on government power it is a bad ruling.

Intent is contextual. As context changes, intent becomes less relevant and more generalized.

That is just a wild excuse. The issue being debated doesn't change the intent of the law. If the commerce clauses intent is trade disputes between the listed members and what you are debating with has to deal with business activities towards customers or employees you are way outside the scope of the clause. I'm sorry, but context does not affect the intent.
 
Last edited:
Here is a fun little question..

Is it the job of the supreme court to update the constitution or to simply uphold it.

Of course, the people that support the living constitution claim they are not updating the constitution, but merely addressing a set of economic facts that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. You know what we call that? Updating the Constitution. Yeah...
 
Here is a fun little question..

Is it the job of the supreme court to update the constitution or to simply uphold it.

Of course, the people that support the living constitution claim they are not updating the constitution, but merely addressing a set of economic facts that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. You know what we call that? Updating the Constitution. Yeah...

You continue to make it clear that you misunderstand the most basic of constitutional principles

The job of SCOTUS is to render decisions on the cases that come before it based on their own beliefs concerning the constitution and the law.

That's why we both agree that *any* decision they make is constitutional, regardless of their reasoning.
 
You continue to make it clear that you misunderstand the most basic of constitutional principles

The job of SCOTUS is to render decisions on the cases that come before it based on their own beliefs concerning the constitution and the law.

That's why we both agree that *any* decision they make is constitutional, regardless of their reasoning.

You do realize that my position is the position of many justices, right?

The fact is your position is counter to reason and the purpose of law and the constitution to begin with.
 
You do realize that my position is the position of many justices, right?

The fact is your position is counter to reason and the purpose of law and the constitution to begin with.

If you believe it is counter to the constitution, then please quote from the constitution where it says SCOTUS must use your position when coming to a decision
 
No, basic reason. The point of the constitution is to keep the government inside a box, so whenever the SC tries to get the government out of its box by ignoring intent they are wrong.

That's circular reasoning. You are justifying intent by claiming... intent. Firstly, intent is variable. There were many who had a hand in creating the Constitution... and many differing views. Intent was not universal. Secondly, since much of the Constitution was written in generalities, intent is fairly irrelevant. Generalities allow for a variety of situations to be applied. Beyond that, how a law was created is not always equivalent to how it is applied or can be applied. And, just because you disagree with this doesn't mean it's not accurate.

That is not what I meant. The 1st and 13th amendment are violated by the law itself, not the SC ruling. My point was that if the law violates the 1st and 13th amendment it is immaterial if it is falls under the commerce clause or not. This is due to the fact that in order to act on the commerce you must violate the 1st and 13th amendment. When the supreme court ignores the rights of the people and simply falls back on government power it is a bad ruling.

The law doesn't violate the 1st and 13 Amendments because one must look at the Commerce Clause in conjunction. None of these things live in a vacuum.

That is just a wild excuse. The issue being debated doesn't change the intent of the law. If the commerce clauses intent is trade disputes between the listed members and what you are debating with has to deal with business activities towards customers or employees you are way outside the scope of the clause. I'm sorry, but context does not affect the intent.

I've told you. I have no use for a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. Nor do many others. Intent is not only variable and relative but becomes less applicable as time passes. It is perfectly reasonable to use the Commerce Clause in the way it was used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since that clause applies to private business operations between states, the application in this matter is justified. This is probably why it was never declared unconstitutional; because it wasn't. Intent has no relevancy here.
 
Here is a fun little question..

Is it the job of the supreme court to update the constitution or to simply uphold it.

Of course, the people that support the living constitution claim they are not updating the constitution, but merely addressing a set of economic facts that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. You know what we call that? Updating the Constitution. Yeah...

YOU call it updating the Constitution. And you would be wrong about that. The Constitution is both a powerful and variable document, one so powerful and variable that it can be used to address situations occurring 225+ years after it was written. There is rarely a need to add something; near everything that it needed to even interpret and deal with today's issues are right there.
 
That's circular reasoning. You are justifying intent by claiming... intent.

That is all I need. :shrug: Your argument is obviously illogical due to the intent of the document itself.

Firstly, intent is variable. There were many who had a hand in creating the Constitution... and many differing views. Intent was not universal.

Your kidding, right? The dispute on the commerce clause like it is with the welfare clause centers around Hamilton and Madison. Hamilton in many ways you could say argued for how it is interpreted today while Madison argued for what I'm telling you it means. Madison is considered the mind behind the commerce clause for a reason and one such reason is that he won the debate on the meaning of the commerce clause. Of course, you could say that due to it being ignored Hamilton won the war.

Secondly, since much of the Constitution was written in generalities, intent is fairly irrelevant. Generalities allow for a variety of situations to be applied. Beyond that, how a law was created is not always equivalent to how it is applied or can be applied. And, just because you disagree with this doesn't mean it's not accurate.

What I said is a generality. Lets review: "The commerce was intended to solve trade disputes between the listed members." That is a general statement.

The law doesn't violate the 1st and 13 Amendments because one must look at the Commerce Clause in conjunction. None of these things live in a vacuum.

That is dumbest argument I ever seen. Are you honestly saying that because its a power of congress that it can not by definition violate any of the amendments? Really? Yes, the parts of the Constitution do not live in a vacuum and its one reason they can not use powers of congress to violate the amendments.


I've told you. I have no use for a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. Nor do many others. Intent is not only variable and relative but becomes less applicable as time passes.

There is not one instance of that happening. Your argument seems to be that I want more and its just not acceptable to not get it. The point of the document is to keep people like yourself in the corner crying.

It is perfectly reasonable to use the Commerce Clause in the way it was used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since that clause applies to private business operations between states, the application in this matter is justified. This is probably why it was never declared unconstitutional; because it wasn't. Intent has no relevancy here.

Which has nothing to do with the commerce clause. In any event, I could just as easily argue that it affects commerce in state lines and therefore not applicable to that commerce. Unless you want to argue that accepting people into my store is interstate commerce. :D That should be a fun argument to make.
 
Last edited:
YOU call it updating the Constitution. And you would be wrong about that. The Constitution is both a powerful and variable document, one so powerful and variable that it can be used to address situations occurring 225+ years after it was written. There is rarely a need to add something; near everything that it needed to even interpret and deal with today's issues are right there.

Yeah, I have seen that argument before. It's the old argument that I can take a document of limited powers and make it reach to whatever I want. It's based on nothing but illogical thought patterns.
 
Yeah, I have seen that argument before. It's the old argument that I can take a document of limited powers and make it reach to whatever I want. It's based on nothing but illogical thought patterns.

Just like I would not want to live with 18th century understanding of medical science I don't want to live with 18th century understanding of the US Constitution. While the library of information has worth it is not the 18th century. Hence the knowledge is living and organic evolving with time
 
Just like I would not want to live with 18th century understanding of medical science I don't want to live with 18th century understanding of the US Constitution. While the library of information has worth it is not the 18th century. Hence the knowledge is living and organic evolving with time

Then what do you want exactly? Do you just want the will of the government and the majority without restraint? If not, what else do you expect to get with such foolishness?
 
Did the BS ever not allow blacks in? News to me.

The Point




Your head

Also, yes, actually. They used to exclude black people, but that practice (mostly) ended nearly a century ago. It took much longer to integrate troops though, black scouts had the "separate but (not) equal" troops until like the freaking 70's.
 
Last edited:
Then what do you want exactly? Do you just want the will of the government and the majority without restraint? If not, what else do you expect to get with such foolishness?

I expect to live in the21st century just like I do and you do too. And you dont know enough to call me a fool. I do know enough to call you a smartass though.
 
Back
Top Bottom