• 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
Coronado said:
Leave or stay as you see fit. :cool:
Click to expand...

Ah - but I have been told it is best to stay and fight to make thing better. ;)

from Goobie

Did you got to school in America? -I- learned this stuff in 8th grade.
Click to expand...

Did I got to school in America? I do not even know what that means? "Got to School".... what does that mean.
 
Last edited:
from Goobie

Absolutely false. This did not occour until Marbury.
Click to expand...

So tell me then... what did the Supreme Court do for those years they were in session when they heard hundreds of cases before the Marbury decision?

That is a simple and direct question. If they at no time in those years ever interpreted the law, what were they doing in case after case?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

:roll:

You probably want to familiarize yourself with the annotations attached to legislation in which they explain what they themselves think they're doing.



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'.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I'm responding to your assertion that the other branches don't "claim" to interpret the Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
from Goobie
So tell me then... what did the Supreme Court do for those years they were in session when they heard hundreds of cases before the Marbury decision?
Click to expand...
They decided those --12-- cases on something other than the issue of Constitutionality.
Here's 5 of them. Point out the Constitutional issue in question and the ruling regarding same.

Talbot v. Seeman 5 U.S. 1 1801
Wilson v. Mason 5 U.S. 45 1801
United States v. Schooner Peggy 5 U.S. 103 1801
Resler v. Shehee 5 U.S. 110 1801
Turner v. Fendall 5 U.S. 117 1801
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
The decided those --12-- cases on someting other than the issue of Constitutionality.
Click to expand...

But that is not the issue... never was and is not now the issue. The issue is your complete misunderstanding of two different powers of Congress
1- the power to interpret the law and the Constitution (and I have provided several sources for this not challenged by you or anyone agreeing with you), and
2- the power of the SC known as Judicial Review taken for itself in the 1803 Marbury case

Again I ask you directly and simply, if the SC did not interpret either the law or the Constitution before 1803, what did they do in all those hundreds of cases they decided for year after year?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
But that is not the issue... never was and is not now the issue. The issue is your complete misunderstanding of two different powers of Congress
1- the power to interpret the law and the Constitution (and I have provided several sources for this not challenged by you or anyone agreeing with you), and
2- the power of the SC known as Judicial Review taken for itself in the 1803 Marbury case

Again I ask you directly and simply, if the SC did not interpret either the law or the Constitution before 1803, what did they do in all those hundreds of cases they decided for year after year?
Click to expand...

Hey -- YOO HOO!!!!!

The Supreme Court heard 12 cases prior to Marbury. 12.

Why do you persist on saying "hundreds" when that's been pointed out to you several times already?
 
haymarket said:
But that is not the issue... never was and is not now the issue. The issue is your complete misunderstanding of two different powers of Congress
Click to expand...
The powers of congress are not the issue. You cannot even keep the branches of government straight, but yet you appoint yourself judge and jury and pronounce a verdict. Amazing.

1- the power to interpret the law and the Constitution and
2- the power of the SC known as Judicial Review taken for itself in the 1803 Marbury case
Click to expand...
What you do not understand is that 1: follows from 2.

Again I ask you directly and simply, if the SC did not interpret either the law or the Constitution before 1803, what did they do in all those hundreds of cases they decided for year after year?
Click to expand...
As I have already put to you in response to this:
I cited 5 of the ---12--- cases before Marbury.
Talbot v. Seeman 5 U.S. 1 1801
Wilson v. Mason 5 U.S. 45 1801
United States v. Schooner Peggy 5 U.S. 103 1801
Resler v. Shehee 5 U.S. 110 1801
Turner v. Fendall 5 U.S. 117 1801
Point out the Constitutional issue in question and the ruling regarding same.
 
haymarket said:
from Goobie



So tell me then... what did the Supreme Court do for those years they were in session when they heard hundreds of cases before the Marbury decision?

That is a simple and direct question. If they at no time in those years ever interpreted the law, what were they doing in case after case?
Click to expand...

You're fighting a losing battle here. Marbury really is where the concept of judicial review comes from. The concept of judicial review isn't invalid simply because it isn't written into the constitution, however. Marbury v. Madison is a fine example of judicial interpretivism, where the court worked within the framework and the constitution, and within the bounds of judicial modesty, to find a solution

But the truly radical advent is not judicial review, but the concept of "originalism" or "constructionism" that are being promoted as if the Framers were some demigod heroes who could do know wrong, and the only good law is based on their Will. The fact is that we can never know what was going on in their minds. The Framers themselves were sharply divided on a number of issues. These were by and large not the issues that divide us today. We all pretty much agree that slavery is a crime and a standing army is a good thing. But the Framers fought rabidly over that kind of stuff, and the Constitution is full of their compromises. But ironically, the issues we are fighting about today are the ones they didn't even foresee, or care enough about, to fix the ambiguous language of the Constitution itself.
 
Harshaw said:
Why do you persist on saying "hundreds" when that's been pointed out to you several times already?
Click to expand...
When you do not know what you're talking about, its important to remain consistent in your wrongness.
Else you'll look like you do not know what you're talking about.
 
Harshaw said:
Hey -- YOO HOO!!!!!

The Supreme Court heard 12 cases prior to Marbury. 12.

Why do you persist on saying "hundreds" when that's been pointed out to you several times already?
Click to expand...

You are confusing rendering a decision after a formal hearing with hearing an appeal to the Court and rejecting it or sending it back to the lower courts for action. The court meets and hears lots of cases that come to it every year without convening as a formal Court and listening to both sides in front of them.

But fine indeed. Let us use the number of 12 as decisions if it makes you happy.

If they did not interpret the law or the Constiution in those cases what exactly were they doing?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
If they did not interpret the law or the Constiution in those cases what exactly were they doing?
Click to expand...
5 of those cases have been cited.
Show the Constitutional issue in question and the ruling regarding same.
 
from Guy Incognito

Marbury really is where the concept of judicial review comes from
Click to expand...

It was the case in which the Court took that power for itself.
 
Goobieman said:
5 of those cases have been cited.
Show the Constitutional issue in question and the ruling regarding same.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. There does NOT have to be a Constitutional issue for a court - any court - to simply interpret the law that is before it and then apply it. That is part and parcel what courts have always done.
 
haymarket said:
You are confusing rendering a decision after a formal hearing with hearing an appeal to the Court and rejecting it or sending it back to the lower courts for action. The court meets and hears lots of cases that come to it every year without convening as a formal Court and listening to both sides in front of them.
Click to expand...

I'm not "confusing" anything, ducky. Those were the only cases before the Supreme Court from the first in 1791.

And even your excuses don't tack. You yourself claimed they decided hundreds of cases and interpreted the constitution/laws in so doing.

Furthermore, refusing to hear a case is NEVER -- and I do mean NEVER -- a decision on the merits, so there is no possibility of interpretation of anything there.

But it's still preposterous, because there were hardly any cases of any kind in the court systems in general to that point. I'm not sure you'd be able to find "hundreds" of total cases in the entire federal system all the way up to 1810.

Face it -- you were blathering about something you haven't the faintest clue about, and now you won't admit error after demanding that Goobie do so. I'm so surprised. Wait. No I'm not.


But fine indeed. Let us use the number of 12 as decisions if it makes you happy.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make me happy or unhappy. It's historical fact, of which you were ridiculously ignorant.


If they did not interpret the law or the Constiution in those cases what exactly were they doing?
Click to expand...

Hey, you claimed they did, so you get into the cases and show me where, and how, they did so. I already asked you to do that once.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt.

There does NOT have to be a Constitutional issue...
Click to expand...
There does when you're trying to argue - as you are - that the court had the power to interpret the Constitution and apply it to law before Marbury.
5 of those cases have been cited.
Show the Constitutional issue in question and the ruling regarding same.

(Given that you cannot, I dont really expect a meaningful reply)
 
from Harshaw


Those were the only cases before the Supreme Court from the first in 1791.
Click to expand...

Those were cases in which a formal decisions was rendered from the bench. How many others came before the court but never given the privilege of a full examination with a formal decision rendered?

There does when you're trying to argue - as you are - that the court had the power to interpret the Constitution and apply it to law before Marbury.
Click to expand...

Courts interpret law constantly as part of their duty.
Simply because the Court did not rule anything as unconstitutional before Marbury does NOT mean they never applied the Constitution to one case, or five or twelve or whatever. Agreeing that a particular law does indeed meet and agree with the Constitution is interpreting the law and applying it as well as interpreting the Constitution.

HOW CAN ANY COURT APPLY THE LAW IF THEY DO NOT EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS - IF NOT TO ANYONE AT LEAST THEMSELVES?????
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Those were cases in which a formal decisions was rendered from the bench. How many others came before the court but never given the privilege of a full examination with a formal decision rendered?
Click to expand...
Whatever the answer is, it is comnpetely irrelevant to anything.
The ONLY thing that matters is the cases they decided on.
 
haymarket said:
from Harshaw




Those were cases in which a formal decisions was rendered from the bench. How many others came before the court but never given the privilege of a full examination with a formal decision rendered?
Click to expand...

No, those were the only cases in front of the court -- and even one of those didn't have a "decision rendered from the court" because it was settled beforehand.

And one more time -- you were the one who said "hundreds of decisions." You were the one who said they interpreted the laws or the constitution in "hundreds" of cases. They would only ever do that if they actually heard the case and issued a decision.

So, you going to show where the Constitution was interpreted, and how? Or are you going to continue to dodge and try to pretend that your massive historical fail wasn't actually a fail?

Why not just admit you were wrong? Or is that only for people who disagree with you?
 
and this whole thing began five pages ago with this comment from Goobieman

The only way leftists can get anything does is to exploit the "too old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation: nature of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So I ask again of you,

Do you agree with the leftists you criticize that the Constitution and laws are open to interpretation?
Or do you hold that the Constitiuion and laws are NOT open to interpretation?

Harshaw - if I erred in the number, I am sorry for doing so. Regardless if it was one case, ten cases, twelve cases or more, they had to interpret the law to do anything before them. How can they apply the law if they do not first explain what the law means at least to each other? They did this in every case before Marbury.

There is a difference in the power to interpret the law and the power of Judicial Review. I have maintained that all along in this discussion and my error in the number of cases does not change that one iota.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
and this whole thing began five pages ago with this comment from Goobieman
So I ask again of you,
Do you agree with the leftists you criticize that the Constitution and laws are open to interpretation?
Or do you hold that the Constitiuion and laws are NOT open to interpretation?
Click to expand...
We accept your concession of the point.

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/5/5-us-1.html
The Constitution isnt even mentioned in the case.
The document, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Boy but you folks like to don the referee shirt and render a verdict don't you? And surprise surprise, you always render a verdict which has you winning and the other side losing. That is amazing.

The only thing I have conceded is making an error in the number I was using. And the number is irrelevant to the principle involved and the fundamental difference between the power to interpret the law and the Constitution and the power to use that to then declare something as unconstitutional. One power (to interpret the law and Constitution) is used in the application of the second (judicial review) .
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Harshaw - if I erred in the number, I am sorry for doing so. Regardless if it was one case, ten cases, twelve cases or more, they had to interpret the law to do anything before them. How can they apply the law if they do not first explain what the law means at least to each other? They did this in every case before Marbury.
Click to expand...

You are equivocating. No one said courts don't interpret "laws." This was about interpreting the Constitution, and prior to Marbury.

I've asked you repeatedly now to show how that was done. You're making the claim. Show it.

And no, the mere fact that the Supreme Court heard cases isn't enough. Not every case has Constitutional issues. In fact, most don't.
 
haymarket said:
Boy but you folks like to don the referee shirt and render a verdict don't you? And surprise surprise, you always render a verdict which has you winning and the other side losing.
Click to expand...
The truth may hurt, but it is still the truth.
Disagree?
Cite the Constitutional question in the 5 pre-Marbury cases I provided and the court's ruling pursuant to same.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Boy but you folks like to don the referee shirt and render a verdict don't you? And surprise surprise, you always render a verdict which has you winning and the other side losing. That is amazing.
Click to expand...
It's nobody's fault that you are consistently wrong but your own. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom