1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Teen Girls Face Hate Crime Charges Over Anti-Gay Flier

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Dragoon68, May 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Who said anything about the 10th amendment being void? Do you seriously believe that is my argument, or are you politically posturing because you know there is no 10th amendment argument?

    Fact of the matter is in 1868, July 9th to be exact, the Constitution itself prohibited the states from enacting or enforcing any laws that deprived it's citizens of life, liberty, and property without the due process of law. Hence, the 10th amendment itself prohibited the states from doing so likewise. (You know that whole, "nor prohibited it by it to the states" clause.) That is not to say the 10th amendment is void, just not applicable law in this case.

    There is ABSOLUTELY NO 10th amendment argument in this case. The only viable constitutional argument stems from the 14th amendment. You may argue as to the courts definiton of liberty in such cases, but it has nothing to do with the 10th amendment. In fact anyone who petitioned to the court citing a 10th amendment violation in such cases as these would be considered a laughingstock, that is if the petition did not make it to the circular file first.
     
    #61 Filmproducer, May 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2007
  2. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Again review the history of judicial review. There is a reason the judiciary was the least debated branch of government by our founders. They purposefully based the judiciary on the well entrenched principles of English common law which in fact had been practicing judicial review since the 1610 Dr. Bonham's Case. Not to mention the legal history between 1776-1787. During this time eight of the thirteen colonies instituted judical review and by 1789 various state courts had struck down at least 8 acts as unconstitutional. Couple this history with the earliest of SCOTUS case history, especially Marbury, and again you have no argument.....
     
  3. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    It has nothing to do with a societal view. The infamous "right" could argue the liberty clause and due process of the 14th amendment as well as the "left", afterall the definition of personal liberty is the true legal matter in this case and not the 10th amendment. Perhaps the "right" would gain some ground if their lay people, i.e., those non-lawyers on the outside looking in, would stop belly aching about a violation of the wrong amendment. Just a thought...
     
    #63 Filmproducer, May 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2007
  4. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, my friend, I have plenty of argument!

    Much of our law was based on English common law but we sure didn't want to be governed like England else we'd not have revolted.

    Judical review is one thing but judical legislation is yet another. What we have today is the latter of these two and it is rampant both at the federal and state level.

    The States would not have ratified the original federal Constitution nor any of its amendments if they intended them to mean they would become provinces of the federal government or have their own duly enacted laws over ruled by an out of control Court.

    The States wanted that 10th amendment to protect themselves from a perceived threat. Several of the founders had correctly warned against it. The only problem is they didn't realize that threat would still materialize into accepted practice as it has for so many today.

    The Court is the weakness of the American system. We are doomed if we don't get a handle on it.
     
    #64 Dragoon68, May 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2007
  5. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's an interesting statement!

    The lawyers really do resent the non-lawyers having anything to say about or do with the law. It's a tight little bunch isn't it?

    We have far too many lawyers involved in government and society in general.
     
  6. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Do you even know the very definition of judicial review? Just wondering....

    Judicial review is the very authority of the court to strike down as unconstitutional acts judged to be in violation of the Constitution, (including state laws), and/or to determine the constitutionality of acts committed by the legislature and the executive. It is by its very nature judicial legislation!

    Do you not agree with Marbury v. Madison, (1803)? You do know that most of the original founders were alive at the time Marshall and his court issued their opinion? There was not a huge outcry then, now was there? Hmmm... I wonder why? Marshall himself states very clearly that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is". Honestly, what do you believe the purpose of the judiciary is?

    The states wanted the 10th amendment for their protection, I grant you that, but that is not the issue in this case! Not to mention the states, i.e., the founders, realized just how much of a flop the AOC, i.e., state supremity over a centralized government, really was. They did have first hand knowledge of its failure you know. The states gave up their right, so to speak, to enact and enforce laws that deprived life, liberty, or property to their citizens without due process of law when THEY, THE STATES, ratified the 14th amendment to the constitution on July 9th, 1868. Do you or do you not believe the constitution is the supreme law of the land, or do you skip over Article VI altogoether?

    BTW, basing our judicial sustem on English common law has nothing to do with governing ourselves as the English. What do you think the other two branches are for? C'mon, you know your history better than that. Our judiciary was based on English common law because the founders knew the system worked, point blank. Read the FP's, especially Hamilton, and you'll see for yourself.
     
    #66 Filmproducer, May 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2007
  7. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes to first and no to the second. Supreme, yes, but exclusive, no!

    Do you or do you not believe that the 10th amendment is still part of the Constitution?
     
  8. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    I have already stated the affirmative many times in this thread....

    The 10th amendment is part of the constitution, it is just not applicable law in this case! Why is that so difficult to understand? I have given plenty of legal reasons, basic ones at that, as to why it is not applicable and you have yet to give one. Why? If you really believe this is a 10th amendment case show some legal proof.
     
  9. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely Justice Marshall was friendly to the Court in as much as his views expanded his own domain.

    James Madison said: "As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary dept. paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper."

    We have come far into that which was never intended and not proper.
     
  10. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps the problem is that you can not understand what I have been writing?

    The 10th amendment applies because it justifies the rights of the state to regulate matters such as sodomy and prohibits the federal government for interferring. It is most certainly applicable to the discussion. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Surely you, as a legal wizard, know better?

    If the 14th amendment was intended to remove such rights from the states, then they would be powerless to make and enforce much of any law.
     
  11. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    :laugh: Yeah that's it... You do know that Marshall never struck down a Congressional law as unconstitutional, right?

    Chew on this for minute.

    Alexander Hamilton Federalist 78
    "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than the principal."

    (In case you didn't know, it's a pretty clear justification for judical review......)
     
  12. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure, let me help you understand it: Judicial review it the process by which the courts review the application of law to insure that the individual rights of persons are protected by the tyranny of the majority. That's a good thing, Filmproducer! That's what was clarified by Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 that you cited.

    The problem is that this good thing has been expanded into a very bad thing. That bad thing is called judicial legislation. Do you know what that is? This is where the courts decide to take on the authority vested in the legislative branch in order to implement some policy or make some de facto law they believe is in the best interest of the nation as they see it. These acts violate the legitimate rights of the majority to regulate society through law in the interest of illegitimate objections or imaginary rights of a minority. This extends even to policy designed to implement rulings that otherwise involve proper judical review.
     
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure, no problem with this judical review.

    It could also be said "No judical act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. ..."!
     
  14. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    NO it does not when those laws violate the 14th amendment! The 10th amendment cannot apply because the 14th amendment ALREADY prohibits the states from enacting and enforcing said laws. The only argument can then be that personal liberty does not extend to those of a sexual nature in the privacy of one's dwelling. This is the ONLY applicable law in this case. You cannot argue that the court's interpretation of the 14th amendment violates the 10th amendment. You can only argue that the court misinterpretated the 14th amendment. THE 10TH AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

    With that being said it useless to go in circles arguing the same thing. It's a complete waste of time, and it's very counterproductive. FTR, I am not saying there is not a constitutional argument in this case, only that you are not arguing the correct one. I personally believe the court was right in that I don't believe it is in the scope of any government, federal or state, to criminalize private behavior between consenting adults. I certainly don't want to give them the rights to my private life, nor should you. If you want to argue the court was wrong, so be it. The correct way to do so would be to show why their interpretation of liberty does not extend to said behavior.
     
  15. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Okaayyy.... Umm has it escaped your notice that the Costitution gives the Supreme Court the right to determine what is constitutional? Do you not think Hamilton understood that fact?
     
  16. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    What genious law school did you get that from? Judicial review is by it's very nature judicial legislation...... (I believe I already stated that)
     
  17. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    No to the first and yes to the second.

    George Mason said regarding the Court: "... that in this capacity they could impede, in one case only, the operation of laws. They could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or peernicious, that did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity, as judges, to give it a free course."

    That old boy had a lot to do with writing the Bill of Rights.
     
    #77 Dragoon68, May 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2007
  18. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is exactly the misunderstanding that's killing our great system!
     
  19. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Which laws did the SCOTUS strike down as void, but not unconstitutional? :confused:
     
  20. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Yeah, that's it..... We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.... Alexander Hamilton must be part of this great misunderstanding in the rule of law in your mind, I guess.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...