Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

Flash said:
Nevertheless, those involved in writing the document believed they had given Congress that power.
Click to expand...
Lie.
Flash said:
That is probably a more accurate judgment than yours.
Click to expand...
Lie.
Flash said:
Hamilton was successful in creating the national bank.
Click to expand...
Lie.
Flash said:
How was he rebuffed?
Click to expand...
The 'bank' was just a payment system for foreign debt. It was not an actual bank.
Flash said:
The Supreme Court later upheld that law.
Click to expand...
The Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
No it doesn't. The court is not authorized to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It is according to Federalist No. 78.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

"W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . "

This recognizes the principal of judicial review and the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution which is supreme over laws and the will of the people.
 
Into the Night said:
They have every right to interpret the Constitution. They own it. They are the ONLY ones that can interpret it or amend it, collectively.
Click to expand...

The Constitution gives no role to the states to interpret the Constitution as that is the role of the courts (Federalist 78). They have a role in amending the Constitution but not without the joint involvement of the federal government.That is the point of the document--the Constitution cannot be amended without both federal and state action.
 
Flash said:
It is according to Federalist No. 78.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

"W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . "

This recognizes the principal of judicial review and the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution which is supreme over laws and the will of the people.
Click to expand...

there is no way you can reconcile the debates of the framers to mean that they gave the power of their newly built government to define it's powers. They were adamant about the new government being restricted as much as possible with the few prescribed powers that they were given.
 
Flash said:
The Constitution gives no role to the states to interpret the Constitution as that is the role of the courts (Federalist 78). They have a role in amending the Constitution but not without the joint involvement of the federal government.That is the point of the document--the Constitution cannot be amended without both federal and state action.
Click to expand...

you've heard of the 9th Amendment, no?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there is no way you can reconcile the debates of the framers to mean that they gave the power of their newly built government to define it's powers. They were adamant about the new government being restricted as much as possible with the few prescribed powers that they were given.
Click to expand...

Of course, that is the purpose of the courts. Without them the president and Congress would be completely free to determine their own powers and there would be no check on those powers (including jury nullification).
 
Flash said:
Of course, that is the purpose of the courts. Without them the president and Congress would be completely free to determine their own powers and there would be no check on those powers (including jury nullification).
Click to expand...

that's some very circular logic you're trying to spin..............it's almost like you're saying that the preamble is just flowery speech to the government and doesn't mean anything, like 'we the people'.........i'll bet you think 'we are the government' also, don't you?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you don't think the states have a say in amending the constitution? how many states does it take to ratify an amendment?
Click to expand...

You misstated my post. I said amendments require both federal and state action (not that the states don't have a say). The state role is ratifying amendments. The federal level is involved in proposing those amendments.

I said the 9th amendment has nothing to do with the amending process.
 
Flash said:
You misstated my post. I said amendments require both federal and state action (not that the states don't have a say). The state role is ratifying amendments. The federal level is involved in proposing those amendments.

I said the 9th amendment has nothing to do with the amending process.
Click to expand...

thank you for restating it in a clearer manner, then.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that's some very circular logic you're trying to spin..............it's almost like you're saying that the preamble is just flowery speech to the government and doesn't mean anything, like 'we the people'.........i'll bet you think 'we are the government' also, don't you?
Click to expand...

The preamble has no binding legal principles. The "we the people" is not a power---the powers and limits of government are contained in the document itself as exercised through the people through their representatives. You are claiming the preamble overrides the Constitution itself. The people can't change the Constitution except in the most abstract sense.
 
Into the Night said:
They have every right to interpret the Constitution. They own it. They are the ONLY ones that can interpret it or amend it, collectively.
Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of how the states have ever interpreted the Constitution? And how that was done in practice.
 
Into the Night said:
Too bad they also attempt to change the Constitution from time to time.

But you are not looking at the problem, only the success stories.
Click to expand...

According to your system those problems would be solved by constitutional provisions such as "we the people," the states, jury nullification, or whatever methods you think restrictions were put on the constitutional powers of government.

Since those problems were not solved in your view those methods to check the powers of government either do not exist or the people, states, and juries were happy with those decisions and do not see them as a problem.

You claim there are all these checks other than the courts but apparently they are not working.
 
Flash said:
The preamble has no binding legal principles. The "we the people" is not a power---the powers and limits of government are contained in the document itself as exercised through the people through their representatives. You are claiming the preamble overrides the Constitution itself. The people can't change the Constitution except in the most abstract sense.
Click to expand...
i just can't.............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top