View Poll Results: Is the Supreme Court being the Ultimate Arbiter of Constituionality a Problem?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality

    6 17.65%
  • The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are no problems with that

    5 14.71%
  • The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are problems but it is the best system possible

    14 41.18%
  • the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter its a problem, but there are ways to improve (explain)

    8 23.53%
  • Other/Don't Know

    1 2.94%
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

Thread: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

  1. #71
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,417

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I think they can ADD words.

    Not sure about changing.

    And "Obamacare" was not in any way a constitutional amendment, so far as I know...

    Besides which, the SCOTUS said something to em along the lines of "no, you can't fine em', but you can call it a tax and then we're good".

    Tis a tax, like everyone always knew.
    So, in other words, the SC can play semantics to achieve a desired end instead of focusing on intent.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  2. #72
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,865
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I think they can ADD words.

    Not sure about changing.

    And "Obamacare" was not in any way a constitutional amendment, so far as I know...
    Are we talking about the same thing? I was refering to SCOTUS...they cannot add any words to the Constitution. Only the legislative branch may do that via the amendment process. They can however (even though they should not be able to) change the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Obamacare was an example of them doing just that.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Besides which, the SCOTUS said something to em along the lines of "no, you can't fine em', but you can call it a tax and then we're good".

    Tis a tax, like everyone always knew.
    No, its not a tax at all. Taxes are paid to a government and are used to benefit those that pay that tax. Obamacare does not do that because those that pay it in no way benefit from it.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #73
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    So, in other words, the SC can play semantics to achieve a desired end instead of focusing on intent.
    Taxing us WAS the intent....

    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #74
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Are we talking about the same thing? I was refering to SCOTUS...they cannot add any words to the Constitution. Only the legislative branch may do that via the amendment process. They can however (even though they should not be able to) change the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Obamacare was an example of them doing just that.
    I was talking about congress.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    No, its not a tax at all. Taxes are paid to a government and are used to benefit those that pay that tax. Obamacare does not do that because those that pay it in no way benefit from it.
    Obamacare originally said "buy insurance from one of these guys or we fine your ass". The SCOTUS said "you can't do that, but if you tax people who don't buy insurance, that's OK."


    OR that's how I understood it.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #75
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,865
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I was talking about congress.
    Ah, I was talking about SCOTUS since that is what the thread is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Obamacare originally said "buy insurance from one of these guys or we fine your ass". The SCOTUS said "you can't do that, but if you tax people who don't buy insurance, that's OK."


    OR that's how I understood it.
    You're right, thats what they said. However if you take a look, no where does Obamacare call it a tax. Including at healthcare.gov which tells people what happens to those that don't have insurance. In that section the word "tax" does not appear even once. However the words "fee" and "penalty" does, several times. Even the government refuses to call it a tax. That section also states that when you pay the fee/penalty you also still have to fully pay for any medical costs you get. So....where is the benefit here? Where is the evidence that this is in actuality a "tax"? IE: You can call a cat a human, but that does not mean that it IS a human.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #76
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Ah, I was talking about SCOTUS since that is what the thread is about.



    You're right, thats what they said. However if you take a look, no where does Obamacare call it a tax. Including at healthcare.gov which tells people what happens to those that don't have insurance. In that section the word "tax" does not appear even once. However the words "fee" and "penalty" does, several times. Even the government refuses to call it a tax. That section also states that when you pay the fee/penalty you also still have to fully pay for any medical costs you get. So....where is the benefit here? Where is the evidence that this is in actuality a "tax"? IE: You can call a cat a human, but that does not mean that it IS a human.
    The evidence is in the SCOTUS interpretation, and according to them, it IS a tax. Thus, the issue has been vetted. However, I agree with you that the Obama interpretation of this was less than honest.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #77
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Ah, I was talking about SCOTUS since that is what the thread is about.
    No, the thread is about "who is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality", or perhaps "should SCOTUS be?" I argued Congress.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  8. #78
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Most Congressmen seem to believe in Congress having unlimited power. at least if what they actually pass is any indication. If Congress shoudl be the ultimate arbiter, then there's no point in even having a constitution.

  9. #79
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    Most Congressmen seem to believe in Congress having unlimited power. at least if what they actually pass is any indication. If Congress shoudl be the ultimate arbiter, then there's no point in even having a constitution.
    I'm not exactly sure how it works currently...Congress can pass a law, but then if someone challenges it in court the SCOTUS can overturn it? Or call it "unconstitutional"?

    Can Congress then modify or add to the constitution? Does that take a larger percentage of congress?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #80
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I'm not exactly sure how it works currently...Congress can pass a law, but then if someone challenges it in court the SCOTUS can overturn it? Or call it "unconstitutional"?
    Unconstitutional is one way to define it, but I just prefer illegal. Congress has been delegated certain powers, and any exercise of powers it does not posses is illegal. So whenever they exceed their powers, someone affected by the illegal law can seek relief from the courts.

    Can Congress then modify or add to the constitution? Does that take a larger percentage of congress?
    Yes, two thirds of both chambers, and then 38 states have to ratify the amendment.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •