• 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!

The Purpose Of The Bill Of Rights

MovingPictures said:
I feel like I'm in Goodfellas, where everything I say to you gets a sort of "I'M FUNNY HOW?" response, and no response will calm you down.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but no honest reader is going to buy this lame tactic.
 
Harshaw said:
None of this has anything to do with the actual point.

You said:



And that's wrong.

By the way, as far as "liberties" go, states are perfectly free to expand upon them, well above federal protections.
Click to expand...
There's no point carrying on with you.

You refuse to answer direct questions, instead you duck and dodge, and weave around them. Then you make bold assertions like these without anything to back them up.

You're a frustrating, dishonest debate partner, and I'm not going to engage in any further discourse with you, so you can forget trying to provoke me into one these again. Don't waste your efforts - I won't respond.
 
MovingPictures said:
There's no point carrying on with you.

You refuse to answer direct questions, instead you duck and dodge, and weave around them. Then you make bold assertions like these without anything to back them up.

You're a frustrating, dishonest debate partner, and I'm not going to engage in any further discourse with you, so you can forget trying to provoke me into one these again. Don't waste your efforts - I won't respond.
Click to expand...

MovingPictures said:
You, sir, wouldn't know honesty if it bit you.
Click to expand...

This is truly pathetic.

I have answered everything you said plainly, honestly, and unequivocally. Apparently you simply didn't understand the answers -- to be the most charitable. After all, you did say it "makes no sense."

I made detailed arguments that you simply snipped out of your replies. I gave you examples of areas the Supreme Court doesn't have authority over Congress or the President, and you snipped that out of your reply, too. I gave you a recent Supreme Court counterexample to your assertion of what courts will supposedly do in a conflict between federal and state law.

The problem is that you're in over your head. That doesn't make me dishonest. It just makes you ill-equipped to have this conversation.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Tell me where it says that.
Click to expand...

I provided the intent by the authors and Ratifiers.

Now you show me where the Supreme Court is mentioned in Article VI to adjudicate a conflict.
 
MovingPictures said:
Unless a law passed by Congress is found by SCOTUS to be itself unconstitutional, it is the supreme law of the land. If the court rules against the federal government, then the constitution can be amended.

While we might not like it, states only have as much power on matters uncovered by the constitution as the SCOTUS and federal government give them. If every state law is allowed to trump federal law then pretty soon we don't have 'the fifty states' and we wind-up with 'the fifty countries', which is the framers made it clear that such a thing wouldn't be possible.
Click to expand...

Why is that not a problem for states that pass very restrictive gun laws or very lax marijuana laws? What you really mean is that state laws that you happen to like are OK, but otherwise if you happen to like the federal law better only then should federal law prevail.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why is that not a problem for states that pass very restrictive gun laws or very lax marijuana laws? What you really mean is that state laws that you happen to like are OK, but otherwise if you happen to like the federal law better only then should federal law prevail.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a load of bull****.

I'm against the stupid ass drug war to the point of it being near religious for me, but I know that federal law still trumps the states that have legalized it. Further, while I believe gun rights need to be reexamined in a more modern context, I recognize the constitution provides people with the right to own them, and can only be changed trough an amendment.

So will you be man enough to apologize for misrepresenting my beliefs, or will you double down? Based on our previous exchanged, I assumed better from you.
 
MovingPictures said:
Well, that's a load of bull****.

I'm against the stupid ass drug war to the point of it being near religious for me, but I know that federal law still trumps the states that have legalized it. Further, while I believe gun rights need to be reexamined in a more modern context, I recognize the constitution provides people with the right to own them, and can only be changed trough an amendment.

So will you be man enough to apologize for misrepresenting my beliefs, or will you double down? Based on our previous exchanged, I assumed better from you.
Click to expand...

Why exactly is it OK that we now have state laws that differ (often greatly) from federal laws? You seemed to have asserted that was unconstitutional (and that federal law always prevails) yet I noted two (of many) cases where such differences clearly exist.

Exactly as I said, see bolded above, you favor such differences. You also did not address why state gun laws that are more strict than federal gun laws are OK (i.e. somehow require no constitutional amendment).
 
Howard the Duck said:
Where is their intent listed in the Constitution of the United States?
Click to expand...

Why would the intent be there. Are you saying that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the supremacy clause?
 
Tennyson said:
Why would the intent be there. Are you saying that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the supremacy clause?
Click to expand...

Show me where I said that.

And why would the cherry picked intent of a vocal few be an adequate or authorized substitute for the intent of the complete assembled body?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Why exactly is it OK that we now have state laws that differ (often greatly) from federal laws? You seemed to have asserted that was unconstitutional (and that federal law always prevails) yet I noted two (of many) cases where such differences clearly exist.

Exactly as I said, see bolded above, you favor such differences. You also did not address why state gun laws that are more strict than federal gun laws are OK (i.e. somehow require no constitutional amendment).
Click to expand...
I already answered your question regarding what I believe, yet you continue to lie as if I haven't clarified, and refuse to apologize like a coward.

You're not the respectable poster I thought you were - you're something else.
 
Howard the Duck said:
That wasn't a statement on my part. It was a QUESTION.

I await your demonstration.
Click to expand...

I am using your argument. The Supreme Court is not mentioned in Article VI, so using your methodology, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.
 
MovingPictures said:
I already answered your question regarding what I believe, yet you continue to lie as if I haven't clarified, and refuse to apologize like a coward.

You're not the respectable poster I thought you were - you're something else.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what you said:

While we might not like it, states only have as much power on matters uncovered by the constitution as the SCOTUS and federal government give them. If every state law is allowed to trump federal law then pretty soon we don't have 'the fifty states' and we wind-up with 'the fifty countries', which is the framers made it clear that such a thing wouldn't be possible.
Click to expand...

2A rights are clearly stated in (covered by?) the US constitution yet the federal government does not go after states that enact gun laws which conflict with federal gun laws. They leave it up to some poor slob to gain standing when they get caught with a gun (or magazine) that is completely legal (and constitutional?) by federal law yet is illegal per state law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is exactly what you said:



2A rights are clearly stated in (covered by?) the US constitution yet the federal government does not go after states that enact gun laws which conflict with federal gun laws. They leave it up to some poor slob to gain standing when they get caught with a gun (or magazine) that is completely legal (and constitutional?) by federal law yet is illegal per state law.
Click to expand...
Again, you refuse to apologize for accusing me of partisanship in regards to the law.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you're saying there haven't been 27 amendments to the constitution? Never had an amendment strike down another amendment?

Did you study law at University of Phoenix Online? This is high school level civics, bud.
Click to expand...

you confuse amending the constitution with judges pretending the plain words mean something else. its the latter group that uses the "lying constitution crap" to justify their schemes.

where did you study law btw? You might think of retaking that civics class
 
Harshaw said:
Amendments aren't "living constitution" bull****. "Living constitution" bull**** is what's pushed to get around the amendment process.
Click to expand...

nothing is funnier than watching some make a comment as he did when he completely misses the point. You having a law degree-did not
 
MovingPictures said:
There is nothing in the Constitution whatsoever that implies state law trumps federal law.

In fact, it is very clear in passages such as the fourteenth amendment that matters such as "equal protection" are not for states to decide.
Click to expand...

you fail to understand that federal law needs a constitutional jurisdiction to exist. laws passed by the federal government that don't have proper Article One Section 8 foundations violate the tenth amendment. for example Lopez v USA
 
MovingPictures said:
Ever hear of the 'Supremacy Clause'? :lol:



Geez, you guys think you sound like experts, but its pretty clear you actually no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
you miss an essential step. if a federal law has a proper constitutional foundation then yes, the SC applies. But our federal government was supposed to be one of limited powers though FDR and his pet monkeys pretended that the federal government had essentially any power it wanted as long as a majority of the congress voted a certain way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom