• 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
pro-bipartisan said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are completely wrong. Unless an amendment was made to the Constitution, the law would be just a law. Hence it could be unconstitutional if a court challenge were brought.

A law not in the Constitution is not automatically Constitutional or not just because it is a law.

PS your statement about opinion is completely and utterly wrong.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You are completely wrong. Unless an amendment was made to the Constitution, the law would be just a law. Hence it could be unconstitutional if a court challenge were brought.

A law not in the Constitution is not automatically Constitutional or not just because it is a law.

PS your statement about opinion is completely and utterly wrong.
Click to expand...

Then prove it, oh yeah, you can't.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
And that person is wrong, just because someone wrongly thinks something, that doesn't mean it's their opinion, it means they are wrong.
Click to expand...
You may not be aware of this, but it impossible for an opinion to be wrong.

Impossible.

An opinion is simply that - an opinion. It cannot be right, wrong, correct or incorrect. It can only be an opinion.

Their opinion may, in your opinion, be wrong - but that, also, is an opinion.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
You may not be aware of this, but it impossible for an opinion to be wrong.
Impossible.

An opinion is simply that - an opinion. It cannot be right, wrong, correct or incorrect. It can only be an opinion.

Their opinion may, in your opinion, be wrong - but that, also, is an opinion.
Click to expand...
I never said that, try again. I simply said not all things are a matter of opinion. For example, is 2+2=4 an opinion or fact? Learn to read.
 
The Mark said:
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.
Click to expand...

pro-bipartisan said:
Quote that post then, oh yeah, you can't because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Ummmm I already did. This would be the second time I am including it. :mrgreen:
 
pro-bipartisan said:
I never said that, try again. I simply said not all things are a matter of opinion. For example, is 2+2=4 an opinion or fact? Learn to read.
Click to expand...
You informed me that they didn't have an opinion, they were just flat-out wrong.
Now, such a statement is obviously an opinion, as you cannot possibly know, without any fraction of a shadow of a doubt, that they are wrong.

You can believe they are wrong.

You can believe that the Constitution of the United States of America says they are wrong.

But it is still only your opinion that they are wrong.

And, 2+2=4 is also a matter of opinion.
 
The Mark said:
You informed me that they didn't have an opinion, they were just flat-out wrong.
Now, such a statement is obviously an opinion, as you cannot possibly know, without any fraction of a shadow of a doubt, that they are wrong.

You can believe they are wrong.

You can believe that the Constitution of the United States of America says they are wrong.

But it is still only your opinion that they are wrong.

And, 2+2=4 is also a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

No, anyone who can read would understand that the example I gave is unconstitutional. Just because someone disagrees with fact doesn't mean it's their opinion.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
No, anyone who can read would understand that the example I gave is unconstitutional. Just because someone disagrees with fact doesn't mean it's their opinion.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes, that would be their opinion.

:doh
 
The Mark said:
Actually, yes, that would be their opinion.

:doh
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, that person would just need to learn to read. If a law says don't kill someone and you kill someone, it's a fact that you broke the law, not your opinion.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
No, it wouldn't, that person would just need to learn to read. If a law says don't kill someone and you kill someone, it's a fact that you broke the law, not your opinion.
Click to expand...
No, it's the opinion of the court that you broke the law - or didn't.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
No, it's the opinion of the court that you broke the law.
Click to expand...

No, it's a fact. I think you need a little lesson on the difference between these two words. A FACT is "an actual event, happening, etc.," whereas an OPINION is a personal view. If someone says "I killed someone" and killing is against the law it's not an opinion of whether that person broke the law. It is an actualy event or happening that a person killed someone. Therefore it is fact. It is also fact that killing is against the law. Therefore it is a fact that the killer broke the law. How much more breaking down do you need?
 
pro-bipartisan said:
No, it's a fact. I think you need a little lesson on the difference between these two words. A FACT is "an actual event, happening, etc.," whereas an OPINION is a personal view. If someone says "I killed someone" and killing is against the law it's not an opinion of whether that person broke the law. It is an actualy event or happening that a person killed someone. Therefore it is fact. It is also fact that killing is against the law. Therefore it is a fact that the killer broke the law. How much more breaking down do you need?
Click to expand...

It is a fact that killing is against the law as the current law against murder is understood. That understanding can always change. I doubt it will in this case as the concept is very deeply embedded in our culture.

However, language itself is always vulnerable to subjective interpretation, largely dependent on cultural and personal context.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
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)
Click to expand...

If it wasn't intended to be a living document then where does the role of the SCOTUS come into play? The primary role of that court has been interpretation of the Constitution to new issues and problems since Marbury v. Madison as defined in Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution. If there was no need for interpretation than the SCOTUS would be nothing more than the ultimate appeals court.

Of course the role of the SCOTUS in defining the Constitution was decided by the SCOTUS itself, before that the issue wasn't exactly clear on who said what the Constitution said, but the SCOTUS was the natural choice after all since the issues in Marbury v. Madison were of national concern, what other court than the Supreme should hear the case? And the Court decided that it was only the natural choice to decide issues of Constitutional law as issues on the Supreme law should be decided by the Supreme Court. One could argue that the Court was wrong in its decision, but it is a decision that has been in effect for over 200 years.

BUT then you're back to the same issue there was 200 years ago, who decides what the meaning of the Constitution is? The meaning of many parts many be literally clear, such as the 2nd amendment, but we've already shown that literal define is not the same as legal definition. Otherwise the SCOTUS wouldn't have felt the need to define handguns as arms, and thus protected by the 2nd Amendment, in their last big 2nd Amendment case in 2006. Whereas the literal define of arms would obviously include handguns, legally it may not, which sounds crazy I know. Other parts of the Constitution are unclear literally and only make sense with viewed with through the scope of legal precedent and court rulings. And lastly, what if two individuals or two states or two parties have a disagreement that goes to court and the Constitution is cited as a defense? The ruling of that court will set precedent for Constitutional meaning.

Personally I think Article 3 was clear on the SCOTUS having this role anyway, but thats the thing about law is that the wording can change meaning with precedent just like in English common law which our system is based.
 
megaprogman said:
It is a fact that killing is against the law as the current law against murder is understood. That understanding can always change. I doubt it will in this case as the concept is very deeply embedded in our culture.
Click to expand...

How would the "understanding" change? Anyway, that is irrelevant, I'm not talking specifically about murdur, it's just an example. But could you explain how the definition of murder would change?
 
pro-bipartisan said:
How would the "understanding" change? Anyway, that is irrelevant, I'm not talking specifically about murdur, it's just an example. But could you explain how the definition of murder would change?
Click to expand...

I can imagine that one way would be for society to keep adding exceptions that move the line between murder and other types of killing. Eventually one culture's conception of murder is different than it previously was.
 
megaprogman said:
I can imagine that one way would be for society to keep adding exceptions that move the line between murder and other types of killing. Eventually one culture's conception of murder is different than it previously was.
Click to expand...

Okay, I understand your point. But if someone violates what is written in law (whether it is different from now or not) it is still breaking the law. It's just a different law they break.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Okay, I understand your point. But if someone violates what is written in law (whether it is different from now or not) it is still breaking the law. It's just a different law they break.
Click to expand...

If enough of the culture or the ruling elements of that culture deem it that way, than yes.

To bring it back to the constitution. Liberals and Conservatives largely share different cultures. One's culture is vital to one's understanding of all language. This, I believe, is the main source of the difference how this document is viewed and interpreted. This also explains why something that seems obvious to one person or group is not obvious to another.
 
Last edited:
pro-bipartisan said:
No, it's a fact. I think you need a little lesson on the difference between these two words. A FACT is "an actual event, happening, etc.," whereas an OPINION is a personal view. If someone says "I killed someone" and killing is against the law it's not an opinion of whether that person broke the law. It is an actualy event or happening that a person killed someone. Therefore it is fact. It is also fact that killing is against the law. Therefore it is a fact that the killer broke the law. How much more breaking down do you need?
Click to expand...

Killing is sometimes OK if you do it in self defense. That's a fact. There are different definitions. Most laws, regulations, contracts, provide their own "definitions" in any form of thereof. It is legal and binding. The dictionary definitions do not count in these matters when it comes to the defined definitions.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Killing is sometimes OK if you do it in self defense. That's a fact. There are different definitions. Most laws, regulations, contracts, provide their own "definitions" in any form of thereof. It is legal and binding. The dictionary definitions do not count in these matters when it comes to the defined definitions.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If the law says killing someone under any circumstances is illegal, then you just broke the law.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
No, it's a fact. I think you need a little lesson on the difference between these two words. A FACT is "an actual event, happening, etc.,"...
Click to expand...
As currently defined, yes.
pro-bipartisan said:
...whereas an OPINION is a personal view.
Click to expand...
As currently defined, yes.
pro-bipartisan said:
If someone says "I killed someone" and killing is against the law it's not an opinion of whether that person broke the law. It is an actualy event or happening that a person killed someone. Therefore it is fact. It is also fact that killing is against the law. Therefore it is a fact that the killer broke the law. How much more breaking down do you need?
Click to expand...
If they are correct, and they actually did kill someone (which isn't always the case when someone says "I killed someone").
If the law as it is defined at the time of the incident says they did something illegal.

Then, yes, as the current legal definition of things stands, they did in fact break the law.

However, all laws are based on opinion.

So while they broke the law in fact, said law only exists because in the opinion of the people and the governing body, that law was needed.

Thus my statement that it is an opinion.

Everything is a matter of opinion.
 
The Mark said:
As currently defined, yes.
As currently defined, yes.
If they are correct, and they actually did kill someone (which isn't always the case when someone says "I killed someone").
If the law as it is defined at the time of the incident says they did something illegal.

Then, yes, as the current legal definition of things stands, they did in fact break the law.

However, all laws are based on opinion.

So while they broke the law in fact, said law only exists because in the opinion of the people and the governing body, that law was needed.

Thus my statement that it is an opinion.

Everything is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

That was my point, thanks for proving it for me. But I don't understand why you posted irrelevant (to my post at least) statements in your post. I guess Blackdog abandoned you because once (s)he knew you were wrong too.
 
Last edited:
Those statements are entirely relavent to the discussion between us which spawned this side discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom