• 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!

Schumer calls for hearings on 'un-American' court decision

If Schumer dies from an aneurysm, I'm cool with that.
 
Link here

Umm, what?

He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?

This is ridiculous.

Funny....if it had gone the other way, the same people thanking you Zyph would be screaming that they were all "Activist Judges".....
That's the irony in this.
 
Funny....if it had gone the other way, the same people thanking you Zyph would be screaming that they were all "Activist Judges".....
That's the irony in this.

The court ruled on something that's clearly disallowed by the Constitution, ie, Congress can't pass laws abridging freedom of speech.

If the court had ruled the other way, they would have been wrong, and yes, THEN they would have been activist judges.
 
The court ruled on something that's clearly disallowed by the Constitution, ie, Congress can't pass laws abridging freedom of speech.

If the court had ruled the other way, they would have been wrong, and yes, THEN they would have been activist judges.

I rest my case. Where in the Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a person and entitled to the same rights as people?
 
I rest my case. Where in the Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a person and entitled to the same rights as people?

Where does it say that only people have rights?
 
In the Preamble, "We the People"

Doesn't say anything about rights there. Nor is it legally binding anyway. We the people refers to who created the Constitution, that's all.
 
Doesn't say anything about rights there. Nor is it legally binding anyway. We the people refers to who created the Constitution, that's all.

Oh please....that's quite a stretch. The so-called "Strict Constructionists" aren't any more strict constructionist then anyone else, unless it fits their agenda.
The idea that corporations and inanimate objects are entitled to the same rights as people under our Constitution requires a huge stretch of the imagination.
 
I rest my case. Where in the Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a person and entitled to the same rights as people?

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

It doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except for corporations."

Speech is speech is speech. It doesn't matter where it comes or what medium it's being disseminated through, Congress shall make NO LAW, period!
 
Last edited:
Oh please....that's quite a stretch. The so-called "Strict Constructionists" aren't any more strict constructionist then anyone else, unless it fits their agenda.
The idea that corporations and inanimate objects are entitled to the same rights as people under our Constitution requires a huge stretch of the imagination.

Corporations are made up of people. Thanks for playing.
 
Doesn't say anything about rights there. Nor is it legally binding anyway. We the people refers to who created the Constitution, that's all.

You need to take a refresher course about english grammar. The most important words in any writing at at the very beginning. After that, the words are supposed to support the first ones.

You are reading backwards.
 
You need to take a refresher course about english grammar. The most important words in any writing at at the very beginning. After that, the words are supposed to support the first ones.

You are reading backwards.

The most important words are not always at the beginning. This is not a grammar issue anyway.

The Preamble has no legal force. It is useful for understanding the Constitution and its purpose, but its words are not law.

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=197&invol=11#22

BTW, taking stabs in the dark isn't working out for you. I'm older than you think, and I have a fair amount of expertise in both government and English. Just stick to the topic.
 
Last edited:
Link here

Umm, what?

He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?

This is ridiculous.

.....hmm....I'll remember all the people who thanked this post when we're talking about any Supreme court decisions they might not like.
 
Last edited:
.....hmm....I'll remember all the people who thanked this post when we're talking about any Supreme court decisions they might not like.
What's your point here? How many times have you heard of folks in Congress calling for hearings on a court decision because they didn't like it?
 
What's your point here? How many times have you heard of folks in Congress calling for hearings on a court decision because they didn't like it?

No. Read what I actually wrote.
 
The most important words are not always at the beginning. This is not a grammar issue anyway.

The Preamble has no legal force. It is useful for understanding the Constitution and its purpose, but its words are not law.



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

BTW, taking stabs in the dark isn't working out for you. I'm older than you think, and I have a fair amount of expertise in both government and English. Just stick to the topic.

You made my point. "It is useful for understanding the constitution and its purpose". Are not the enumerations words?

Why don't you report me for being off topic?:roll:

Could you ellaborate on your experience.
? Just saying so does nothing to convince me how very smart you are.
 
Last edited:
You made my point. "It is useful for understanding the constitution and its purpose". Are not the enumerations words?

Yes - with no legal force.

The peamble says "we the people" created the constitution. That doesn't even come close to saying that only people have a right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment, especially when the amendment is written as a limitation on government power, not a granting of rights - and when it expressly protects groups, not just people, for other rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom