• 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!

Can a supreme court ruling be unconstitutional?

Poll


  • Total voters
    54
Unconstitutional according to who?

Oh, if only we had a panel of legal experts who could decide such things! A group of, say, nine such people who would have to be approved by the Senate first!

I believe that impeachment requires 60 out of 100 senators.
 
I agree. We should get rid of that NYC Catholic Scalia.

that is rather stupid given he, along with Roberts and ALito, is one of the three most intellectually gifted judges on the court. In fact most experts on the USSC rate him as one of the smartest ever. Clearly top ten
 
The surest way to kill the constitution is to pretend it is a living document



I disagree. It has changed and will continue to change as our society and population does. It has to be able to grow with us or it is useless. Being a living document does not automatically make it a bad thing.
 
I disagree. It has changed and will continue to change as our society and population does. It has to be able to grow with us or it is useless. Being a living document does not automatically make it a bad thing.

I guess my definition differs from yours

more than a few libs say that the constitution is a living document meaning it can be interpreted differently-WITHOUT AMENDMENTS-based on the current environment

I think that is complete BS
 
I guess my definition differs from yours

more than a few libs say that the constitution is a living document meaning it can be interpreted differently-WITHOUT AMENDMENTS-based on the current environment

I think that is complete BS

OK I see. Yea that is complete BS.
 
I guess my definition differs from yours
more than a few libs say that the constitution is a living document meaning it can be interpreted differently-WITHOUT AMENDMENTS-based on the current environment
I think that is complete BS

If you knew anything about Constitutional law and its history you'd know that the meaning has been interpreted differently since its creation without amendments in most cases.

For example, segregation was once legal. In the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson the SCOTUS ruled that racial segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment specifically the equal protection clause as long as everything that was segregated was equal, hence the term "separate but equal" came into existence. However... in 1954 in the case of Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka the SCOTUS ruled that racial segregation was in fact unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment, specifically the equal protection clause!

There you have the exact same issue being fought over the definition of the exact same amendment and the exact same clause in the amendment but being ruled completely differently each time. That is proof if nothing else is that the Constitution is a living document and that the SCOTUS, acting in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution, has the Supreme authority in its interpretation even if that may change from previous ones!

There is more than one way to change the meaning of the Constitution besides actually amendments and there is a perfect, among many, example of one!

Can I get an Amen brother!
 
Last edited:
If you knew anything about Constitutional law and its history you'd know that the meaning has been interpreted differently since its creation without amendments in most cases.

For example, segregation was once legal. In the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson the SCOTUS ruled that racial segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment specifically the equal protection clause as long as everything that was segregated was equal, hence the term "separate but equal" came into existence. However... in 1954 in the case of Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka the SCOTUS ruled that racial segregation was in fact unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment, specifically the equal protection clause!

There you have the exact same issue being fought over the definition of the exact same amendment and the exact same clause in the amendment but being ruled completely differently each time. That is proof if nothing else is that the Constitution is a living document and that the SCOTUS, acting in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution, has the Supreme authority in its interpretation even if that may change from previous ones!

There is more than one way to change the meaning of the Constitution besides actually amendments and there is a perfect, among many, example of one!

Can I get an Amen brother!

The fact that I drive 75 on the thruway does not prove that the speed limit is 75.
 
The fact that I drive 75 on the thruway does not prove that the speed limit is 75.

The fact that you make meaningless and unconnected analogies instead of actually arguing law doesn't prove a thing either. But really maybe you'd like to make a better argument instead of pouting because you're wrong. And I'm only assuming you are disagreeing with my post because I really can't see even a slimmer of a point in your statement.
 
I do not buy into interpretation nonsense. The constitution should either be read and teken litterally or not at all. At most you should pick up a dictionary if you are unaware what a word means.

This is where literalism fails.

What does the Constitution say about the Internet? What does it say about nuclear warheads? What does it say about cryogenics?

By your definition, we would need to amend the Constitution with every shift instead of interpreting the current circumstances within the framework given to us by our forefathers.

It's like Biblical literalists who don't cast their wives outside the city walls during that time of the month or wear mixed threads; BUT will complain about other Old Testament sins in others.

Either you accept that things have changed and the document serves as a framework for life - OR you follow the word strictly. Hope you didn't shave this morning and have shrimp for dinner. Otherwise you're going to hell, buddy. But, you can ride your nuclear missile a la DR. STRANGELOVE on your way there, since you could simply purchase your own at Wal-Mart.
 
This thread is started to sound like a Pee Wee Herman Elementary School debate.:spin::spin::spin:
 
The fact that you make meaningless and unconnected analogies instead of actually arguing law doesn't prove a thing either. But really maybe you'd like to make a better argument instead of pouting because you're wrong. And I'm only assuming you are disagreeing with my post because I really can't see even a slimmer of a point in your statement.

I'll be more clear.

The fact that something happens from time to time does not mean that that something is proper. The fact that I drive 75 does not mean that the speed limit is 75. Similarly, the fact that the court has often claimed to uncover new rights in the junk drawers and penumbras of the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution was intended as a living document.

(I'm ignoring the fact that Brown v. Board isn't really an example of this)

This is where literalism fails.

What does the Constitution say about the Internet? What does it say about nuclear warheads? What does it say about cryogenics?

By your definition, we would need to amend the Constitution with every shift instead of interpreting the current circumstances within the framework given to us by our forefathers.

Why do you assume that?

Re: internet - Speech is speech. The founders envisioned the first amendment applying to the spoken and written word, so why wouldn't it apply to the internet?
Re: nuclear weapons/cryogenics - Neither of these things have anything to do with the constitution as it is, so I'm not sure why it would need to be amended to include them.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of rulings over the internet, I just read of a ruling by a judge on a p2p site called Isohunt, now i understand that his pockets are full of money from RIAA and that closing its p2p torrenting index site ( it does not hold any content its just a google for torrents...so its like sueing google....which..brings up...more...torrents...then..isohunt...buuuttt) so I get that BS ruling.
What I dont get is why close down the forums?
He rules the entire domain be closed to the USA

Which is a huge ruling, and its based on little to no understand how how a website works/the internet works..

Basicly, my point being, the Constitution does not apply to these things cause its suppose to apply to the very basics of life. Information == Internet == protected by the good old Constitution > Money music industry and ect.
 
Re: internet - Speech is speech. The founders envisioned the first amendment applying to the spoken and written word, so why wouldn't it apply to the internet?

Why wouldn't it apply to television? Why can't I show nudity on (non-cable) TV or use foul language?

What may seem obvious to one person is not to another; we all disagree on what the meaning is (or we wouldn't be having so many debates here). If it were obvious we would have no need of a Supreme Court. But it plainly is not. We must have someone at the top who can make a decision that is binding.

I always find it interesting that the people who say "The Constitution is as plain as day" and never needs interpretation also claim that THEIR interpretation of it is correct and every single person who disagrees with them is wrong. They never understand that they are interpreting too.
 
the FCC is an abomimation (sp)

Its a leech that feeds of censorship and they can fine you ~300000$ for just saying **** on a TV show :roll:

political-pictures-founding-fathers-church-state.jpg



Applies to the post above me :))
 
Last edited:
Why wouldn't it apply to television? Why can't I show nudity on (non-cable) TV or use foul language?

Who said it wouldn't apply to television? Obscenity is not always protected by the first amendment, whether it's written in a pamphlet, posted on the internet, or shown on CBS.
 
Yes, an example is making it illegal for anyone to speak negatively about the government at any point in time.
 
Unconstitutional?
Of course, but in whose opinion?
Certainly NOT in the eyes of our SCOTUS.
Thus, neither yes nor no is my vote.
 
Unconstitutional?
Of course, but in whose opinion?
Certainly NOT in the eyes of our SCOTUS.
Thus, neither yes nor no is my vote.

The constitutionality of something isn't always an opinion.
 
The constitutionality of something isn't always an opinion.
Actually, yes, yes it is.

Even if 99.999% of people are of the opinion that a portion of it is one way, that .001% with a differing opinion makes both sides an opinion.
 
Actually, yes, yes it is.

Even if 99.999% of people are of the opinion that a portion of it is one way, that .001% with a differing opinion makes both sides an opinion.

No it isn't. If their is a law that states people aren't allowed to say anything negative towards the government no matter the point in time, it is unconstitutional. That is a fact, not an opinion, learn the difference.
 
No it isn't. If there is a law that states people aren't allowed to say anything negative towards the government no matter the point in time, it is unconstitutional. That is a fact, not an opinion, learn the difference.
Well, I agree that it should be a fact…But it isn't everywhere in the world.

And, even here in the USA, I bet there is at least one person who thinks a law of that nature would be constitutional.

Like I said, the vast majority of people here in the USA are of the opinion that a law restricting free speech if it is negative towards government is definitely unconstitutional.

But it’s still an opinion.

If enough persons in government were of the opinion that the opposite were true, they could potentially change the law.

That said, in the current environment they would probably have a vast amount of civil unrest (read: revolution) on their hands, but who is to say what the future holds?
 
Well, I agree that it should be a fact…But it isn't everywhere in the world.

And, even here in the USA, I bet there is at least one person who thinks a law of that nature would be constitutional.

Like I said, the vast majority of people here in the USA are of the opinion that a law restricting free speech if it is negative towards government is definitely unconstitutional.

But it’s still an opinion.

If enough persons in government were of the opinion that the opposite were true, they could potentially change the law.

That said, in the current environment they would probably have a vast amount of civil unrest (read: revolution) on their hands, but who is to say what the future holds?

And that person is wrong, just because someone wrongly thinks something, that doesn't mean it's their opinion, it means they are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom