Supreme Court Continues to Impose Morality on States

It is about time to make some changes; the first is to stop this absurd lifetime appointment of any judge; the second is to hold judges accountable for their decisions. That is, based on this ruling, should this individual get out and then kill someone, at least one of the 5 justices should also be killed, immediately. That may eventually stop this foolishness of federal judges.

"Supreme Court Continues to Impose Morality on States"

Right
Supreme Court Continues to Impose Immorality on States

I'm well aware of what is practiced in this country. That in itself proves nothing. Again I cited the US constitution to back up my statements, you have not.
Frank you attribute honesty and integrity to those who have set precedent and act as if these men were agents of God coming from Mt. Sinai. They are anything but, and 1000 erroneous decisions issued from those who openly disregard the US constitution as the basis for their decisions means nothing.

You sir are truly stupid and ignorant. Your posts show how little you know about law, our history and our constitution. I have been trying to teach you how our nation operates. Like a stubborn mule, you seem to insist on your own idiocy trumping reality. I can only hope you learn one day just how stupid you really are and decide to change yourself for the better. Case law is what again? Judges Marshall and Story are irrelevant to your own interpretations? Hows that sensimilla Cheech?

Anne when I respond to Hal, it is not in any serious hope that he will actually decide to consider and analyze what I have said, but that his comments are so absurd they need to be shown for the drivel they are.

and MORE Gay doofbag's comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with the comments he's responding to?

Gay doofbag's posts remind me of some movie I hear advertised... "Partly Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs."

And exactly what does "BUT that said every village has an idiot and you apparently are ours today" have to do with anyone doing whatever one wants so long that it doesn't interfere with others?



And, exactly what does "Honey, hard as it is, please try and be a bit sane. You are entitled to self defense but not thermonuclear weapons. You are clearly a loon but a perfect example of right wing lunacy" have to do with "...I own myself, thus I have the right to determine what I consider necessary to defend myself ...What gives you or anyone the authority to make decisions for me?..."



Gay doofbag is really losing it....

Hal my point being not that I consider a missile necessary for self defense, but I use an exaggerated example to illustrate that as far as the federal government is concerned, no authority exists for them to pass laws as to what I may or may not own for self defense.
The real issues would be local zoning ordinances, hazardous materials, what have one. Again as no man is the issuer of my rights, no man may abridge my rights, but where I give consent.

"Date: May 19, 2010 - 9:28 PM EST
hal and rights
Hal I have the right do whatever I want as long as I don't interfere with your rights.."

Exactly right BUT that said every village has an idiot and you apparently are ours today.

"...I own myself, thus I have the right to determine what I consider necessary to defend myself ...What gives you or anyone the authority to make decisions for me?..."

Honey, hard as it is, please try and be a bit sane. You are entitled to self defense but not thermonuclear weapons. You are clearly a loon but a perfect example of right wing lunacy

Nite sleep well; you need it LOL

Frank you cited case law, I cited the US constitution itself, so use all the childish insults you want, the US constitution is clear, it is the states, not the people that are parties to the US constitution. Further the abundant language of the US constitution shows that we are not a nation, as otherwise there would be no need to guarantee to the STATES a republican form of government, protect the STATES from invasion, there would be no RESERVATION of powers not delegated.
Further the Article 5 amendment process shows that it is up to the states to determine the nature of the federal government and could amend congress, the president, and SCOTUS right out of existence.
BTW, I'm quite aware that the federalist papers were...

You need to read more. The Federalist Papers were intended solely to convince New York voters to affirm the new Constitution. They hold no legal weight, form the basis of no legal decision and are not admisable in any court of law. The ONLY thing that matters is what the SCOTUS decides. Madison was a genius, Hamilton was his equal. They fought bitterly over all these ideas. You can pick sides according to your own bias, that is your right. The law though must be definitive and that law is codified in the rulings of the SCOTUS. If you want to learn more about this topic, pick up the excellent book "What Kind of Nation" by Simon. It is a great laymans version of all these important issues and cases.

Sir, I have no idea what you smoke for recreation but evidently, it is very strong. I cited case law from the SCOTUS in the early 1800s. Justice Story was on the Marshall court, his opinions are LAW. Your idiotic nonsense is just ranting by virtue of ignorance. Now, continue with your tea bagging insanity, we have a nation to run.

Again refuting Story, from Madison, considered by some to be the father of the US constitution.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in...

Hal I have the right do whatever I want as long as I don't interfere with your rights. You continue to show yourself the fool by making idiotic statements. I do not receive my rights from you or anyone else, and the 9th amendment says this..The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. You say otherwise, then back it up moron.
I own myself, thus I have the right to determine what I consider necessary to defend myself and no man may strip me of that right, because that man would then have to own me, to be able to decide for me. Do you own me Hal? What gives you or anyone the authority to make decisions for me? For once in your life Hal make...

Frank, Article 7 of the US constitution, says this..The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Clearly story was lying as the plain language of the ACTUAL CONSTITUTION and not the non-binding and non-authoritative preamble state that it was the states who enacted the constitution between themselves.
Frank it is also the historical record that the people of the states met in in convention in their SEPARATE state polities to ratify the US constitution. When such lies are so easily refuted, they should be refrained from, but fools can't help themselves.

A few comments from the NY Times article on Graham v. Florida I found useful:

'Justice Thomas said the court should look to the practices at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. Given that capital punishment could be imposed on people as young as 7 in the 18th century, he said, Mr. Graham’s punishment would almost certainly have been deemed acceptable back then.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in a concurrence joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, said Justice Thomas’s “static approach to the law” did not allow for societal progress and would entail unacceptable human consequences.

“Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old,” Justice Stevens wrote. “Knowledge...

"If there were no revising authority to control these jarring and discordant judgments and harmonize them into uniformity, the laws, the treaties and the Constitution of the United States would be different in different states", Story wrote. "The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable."

Well, there you have it. Now, this did not stop the states rights folks. They kept at it until we ended up in a Civil War. You folks think that is a good remedy?

The Kentucky Resolutions by Jefferson was his attempt to certify that the Union was of states and not the people. He also attempted to establish that all three branches of the Federal government plus any State government could interpret the US Constitution as they say fit according to their own ideas. This was soundly rejected by Marshall and Story in case after case which was also supported by Madison, Adams, Washington and a host of other founders. To be exact, Justice Story wrote:

"The Constitution of the United States was established not by the states...but, as the preamble declared, by 'the people of the United States.'" The people, rather than the state governments, were therefore the sovereign protectors of the...

You seem to think that because this is where we are in history that this is where we should be.

Just because majority opinion has forced its way in America doesn't make it right.

"Date: May 19, 2010 - 6:24 PM EST
luna and arms bearing
Luna, the Bill of Rights is a check on the federal government, not a permission list for the people. Per the 9th, and excluding state and local laws, I may own my own ICBMs if I chose..."

Thank you so much for proving John was correct - You are a loon. Sorry I do not have the "right" to keeping a thermonuclear device in my house to fend off the next neighborhood. You are done. But thank you so much for destroying any credibility you may have with the audience here

The SCOTUS of the USA is the sole interpreter of the US Constitution. That is established law going back to Marbury v Madison and re-affirmed over and over again during the term of Justice Marshall in other cases. To quote our fine Justice Marshall in Cohens:

"In war we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one, and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interest in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and for many purposes, a nation; and for all these...

John, I've cited the US constitution and historical facts, you've cited yourself.

Do you not see the fallacy of using mere assertions such as "the majority of historians". Ok, line up these historians, judges and scholars comments with the plain language of the US constitution and see where we stand.
Maybe in Johnland your saying something is so works to make a point, but in the real world evidence is needed. Oh, you would also have to establish as an incontrovertible law that the "majority" will always come to the right conclusion or be of such integrity as to be infallible in their conclusions.

Oh, I guess one last point, John I don't believe that some earthly utopia is possible, I merely want a...

It is true that in regard to certain issues the desire for more power on a larger scale was desired, but it was not for the benefit of the people. The concerns were rather military and trade, powers rightfully exercised on a larger scale so that societies would not have to worry about being the prey of the more powerful. This is why COMMON DEFENSE, and why regulation of commerce were delegated federally, and why no civil law powers were granted. Countries like England were able to strangle trade due to the lack of the various states to be able to individually compete. This is also why it was necessary for laws made in pursuit of the general welfare of the STATES,not the people, to be SUPREME. If Virginia was to have one trading...

Finding myself a little tired of participating in this thread, but wanted to point out an incorrectly held superstition.
The argument is often made that if the federal government, or any central government does not exist to prevent abuse of the people at the smaller levels of government then the people are not safe. This begs certain questions, such as what prevents the same corruptible humans from only having more ability to heap abuse on the people due to the greater amount of power put into their hands? Also, what magical process is it that would make this the case?
Can someone point to some natural law that supports the proposition that the people will be better off with more power in the hands of fewer people? Can...

HAve you ever seen or read The Princess Bride? The head bad guy, Vizini, can't believe his plans and henchmen are being thwarted. Whenever he is told that, he keeps saying it is "inconceivable". Finally, one of his minions tells him, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

The Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means, and your vision has been properly ignored since 1865, or even 1801. Your vision of the COnstitution would have left America a fractured, Balkanized, failed experiment. Most of your ilk envision some sort of utopia where you all walk around carrying guns and making millions, tax free. It wouldn't have been like that. At all.

You can call me a fool, but I share the vision of the vast...