• 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!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?


  • Total voters
    61
I am not aware of your credentials to make this determination or if you are merely giving a laymans uneducated opinion. This source says it is very much a power of the SC to interpret the Constitution.
I am aware of my credentials and they are more than sufficient to make such an opinion. Not that this addresses the point, since it is merely an ad hominem argument (apparently I can predict the future!).

Answers.com - What are the powers of the US Supreme Court

of course, they are probably not a poster here who leans Libertarian which disqualfies them in the eyes of some here.
:roll:

I'm sorry, I too made the mistake that you were attempting to do something other than bait. It won't happen again, I promise.
 
No person is discussing Judicial review. We are talking about interpreting the Constitution.
Um... what do you think Judicial Review is?
:doh
 
I am aware of my credentials and they are more than sufficient to make such an opinion. Not that this addresses the point, since it is merely an ad hominem argument (apparently I can predict the future!).

:roll:

I'm sorry, I too made the mistake that you were attempting to do something other than bait. It won't happen again, I promise.

If you are offering your opinion as a source of expert opinion over other submitted sources, then it is perfectly right and indeed proper to ask about them. There is nothing fallacious or improper about that. That is a time honored basic in debate.
 
Last edited:
Um... what do you think Judicial Review is?
:doh

Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary.

That is the lead defining line from the Wikipedia article. Other authoritative sources agree.
 
If you are offering your opinion as a source of expert opinion over other submitted sources, then it is perfectly right and indeed proper to ask about them. There is nothing fallacious or improper about that.
Yeah, but I'm one of those damned libertarians, which disqualifies me in the eyes of some here.

My qualifications are none of your ****ing business, by the way. Other than the fact that they heavily outweigh yours, that is.
 
Anything on the actual topic haymarket or is it simple baiting and trolling here?
 
Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary.
That is the lead defining line from the Wikipedia article. Other authoritative sources agree.
Yes. That's what the SCotUS does when determining if something is Constitutional - when they "interpret the constitution": They take it under Judicial Review.

You havent taken/passed civics 101 yet, have you?
 
Last edited:
And I too could not care less about your qualification.... until you offer your opinion as a source of authority over other objective sources. Then it is right and proper and well within the standard tradition of debate principles to ask about them. You do know about long established debate principles and traditions don't you?
 
And I too could not care less about your qualification.... until you offer your opinion as a source of authority over other objective sources. Then it is right and proper and well within the standard tradition of debate principles to ask about them. You do know about long established debate principles and traditions don't you?


Anything on the topic, champ?
 
And I too could not care less about your qualification.... until you offer your opinion as a source of authority over other objective sources. Then it is right and proper and well within the standard tradition of debate principles to ask about them. You do know about long established debate principles and traditions don't you?

Question:

Do you or do you NOT support a person's right to defend himself?
 
And I too could not care less about your qualification.... until you offer your opinion as a source of authority over other objective sources. Then it is right and proper and well within the standard tradition of debate principles to ask about them. You do know about long established debate principles and traditions don't you?
Right, so you're baiting, as usual. Glad we got that nailed down. :sarcasticclap
 
Yes. That's what the SCotUS does when determining if something is Constitutional - when they "interpret the constitution".

You havent taken/passed civics 101 yet, have you?

You are confusing two different things simply because they are in the province of the Supreme Court.

The power to interpret the Constitution and laws passed by legislative bodies is inherent in the very establishment of courts in this nation. we only have three branches of government and neither of the other two claims that power as it traditionally is in the province of the judicial branch in states and even in other nations with the same traditions. This was nothing new or revolutionary.

The power of Judicial Review- as already cited and explained - is a different power altogether. With its assertion, the SC claimed the power to rule acts of Congress and lower courts as unconstitutional or invalid. It is a completely and totally different thing than interpreting the laws to tell us their meaning.
 
You are confusing two different things simply because they are in the province of the Supreme Court.
No, no I am not.
The power of Judicial Review - the power to intepret the constitution and apply that interpretation to the case at hand - was established in Marbury, and did not exist before that. Nothing in the Constitution directly gives any court the power to rule on if/how something is constitutional or not.

If the Supreme, or any other, Court already had the power to interpret the Constituiton, Marbury would not have been necessary.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject precludes you from having an intelligent discussion regarding same.
 
No, no I am not.
The power of Judicial Review - the power to intepret the constitution and apply that interpretation to the case at hand - was established in Marbury, and did not exist before that. Nothing in the Constitution directly gives any court the power to rule on if/how something is constitutional or not.

If the Supreme, or any other, Court already had the power to interpret the Constituiton, Marbury would not have been necessary.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject precludes you from having an intelligent discussion regarding same.

What in the hell do you think the SC was doing in case after case that came before it in the years before Marbury vs. Madison?

They were applying the law and interpreting the law as they saw it. They did this in hundreds of cases long before the power of Judicial review was ever claimed by them. It is not the same thing no matter how much you want to claim it is.

But again, tell me what the hell the SC was doing with the law in the years before Marbury if they were not interpreting the law.

Can you do that for me please?
 
Last edited:
What in the hell do you think the SC was doing in case after case that came before it in the years before Marbury vs. Madison?
Becausse it settles the point, I shall repeat myself:
If the Supreme, or any other, Court already had the power to interpret the Constituiton, Marbury would not have been necessary.
/discussion
 
Anything on the actual topic haymarket or is it simple baiting and trolling here?

No kidding. Remember all those threads where he dodged answering points by saying it wasn't the topic of the thread?

Who knew it could have been bull****?

:lamo:lamo
 
Becausse it settles the point, I shall repeat myself:
If the Supreme, or any other, Court already had the power to interpret the Constituiton, Marbury would not have been necessary.
/discussion

You cannot even spell the word "because" but yet you appoint yourself judge and jury and pronounce a verdict. Amazing.

This is one of the most nonsensical discussions I have ever been involved in in the last fifty years. The Supreme Court has the built in judicial power to interpret both the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. That power was with them from day one of their existence. Got that?

Judicial review was a power they claimed for themselves in 1803, years after they had heard hundreds of cases.

These are two different things.

Of course to admit this would be to admit error and what would the rest of the gang say to that?
 
No kidding. Remember all those threads where he dodged answering points by saying it wasn't the topic of the thread?

Who knew it could have been bull****?

:lamo:lamo

I did not start this topic. I merely offered correct information on a matter being discussed in it.
 
The power to interpret the Constitution and laws passed by legislative bodies is inherent in the very establishment of courts in this nation. we only have three branches of government and neither of the other two claims that power

That is simply wrong. Congress frequently claims the power to do so when it justifies its authority to do things. Significant example: the commerce clause.

Presidents claim that power when they veto bills because they believe them to be unconstitutional. This, too, has been a frequent occurrence.



The power of Judicial Review- as already cited and explained - is a different power altogether. With its assertion, the SC claimed the power to rule acts of Congress and lower courts as unconstitutional or invalid. It is a completely and totally different thing than interpreting the laws to tell us their meaning.

No one was discussing interpreting "laws." It was about the Constitution. I'm going to have to ask you to stay on the topic of your own off-topic threadjack.
 
I did not start this topic. I merely offered correct information on a matter being discussed in it.

You didn't start any of the others, either, yet you dodged.

:lamo :lamo
 
This is one of the most nonsensical discussions I have ever been involved in in the last fifty years.
Leave or stay as you see fit. :cool:
 
from Harshaw

Congress frequently claims the power to do so when it justifies its authority to do things. Significant example: the commerce clause.

NO. Congress is not claiming the power to interpret either the Constitution of laws passed by Congress. They are simply exercising their other powers contained in Article I as best they understand them. The authority to interpret them resides in the Supreme Court. You are grossly misusing the term interpret to mean "doing what they think they can do" and it is not at all the same thing.



Presidents claim that power when they veto bills because they believe them to be unconstitutional. This, too, has been a frequent occurrence.

Presidents can claim anything they want to claim as a reason to do things. That is irrelevant and immaterial. They are merely exercising their powers listed in Article Ii and interpreting the law is not one of them. Again, you are grossly misusing the word 'interpreting the law' when you mean 'objecting to a law of Congress'.
 
The Supreme Court has the built in judicial power to interpret both the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. That power was with them from day one of their existence. Got that?

Oh? In which cases, and how, did they "interpret" the Constitution prior to Marbury v. Madison?

Judicial review was a power they claimed for themselves in 1803, years after they had heard hundreds of cases.

The Supreme Court heard -- wait for it -- 12 cases prior to Marbury.


Of course to admit this would be to admit error and what would the rest of the gang say to that?

Are you prepared to admit your own?
 
This is one of the most nonsensical discussions I have ever been involved in in the last fifty years.
Given your obvious lack of knowledge regarding the issue, I find that hard to believe,

The Supreme Court has the built in judicial power to interpret both the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. That power was with them from day one of their existence. Got that?
Absolutely false. This did not occour until Marbury.
Disagree? Cite the text of the constituiton that specifically gives the court the power to interpret -anything- with regards to the Constitution.
The explain how/why, if the court had this power, Marbury was necessary,

Judicial review was a power they claimed for themselves in 1803...
Which is what gives them the power to interpret both the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.

Did you got to school in America? -I- learned this stuff in 8th grade.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom