Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 96

Thread: If u had to classify yourself you would be...

  1. -71
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,568
    vCash:
    40556
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Good Lord, nearly everything he has done has been constitutionally questionable. I don't agree with most of what he does but the man is brilliant at tip toeing the very edge of constitutional.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    To be fair, your definition of constitutional is not all that close to established judicial precedent.

    I get your dilemma, don't get me wrong. I wish we could start again on what the 2nd amendment means. But I don't sit here and say that when a gun control law is struck down that the judges are wantonly violating the constitution.



    #freespesh
    Quote Quote  

  2. -72
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    4,060
    vCash:
    16577
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    To be fair, your definition of constitutional is not all that close to established judicial precedent.

    I get your dilemma, don't get me wrong. I wish we could start again on what the 2nd amendment means. But I don't sit here and say that when a gun control law is struck down that the judges are wantonly violating the constitution.
    Like I said, he doesn't necessarily violate the constitution but pushes the envelope. Now regarding the spirit of the constitution and the founders intentions...he craps all over that just as our last few presidents, Supreme Courts, and Congresses have.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  3. -73
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,568
    vCash:
    40556
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Like I said, he doesn't necessarily violate the constitution but pushes the envelope. Now regarding the spirit of the constitution and the founders intentions...he craps all over that just as our last few presidents, Supreme Courts, and Congresses have.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    The Constitution doesn't say that it has to be interpreted according to what these guys were thinking as they wrote it. And it shouldn't, because that's an impossible standard. I mean, do we really expect future generations to be able to determine the intent of the ACA when people today can't even agree on what it really means?

    That's why judicial precedent is really the whole game. It's the actual law, because the law as written is always functionally incomplete. You're free to disagree with precedent -- and I do often -- but it's asinine to take a dump on the president, Congress and the SCOTUS for following the "rules", so to speak. How about we take a **** on the rules instead?
    Quote Quote  

  4. -74
    MAYHEM's Avatar
    Like me

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2011
    Posts:
    678
    vCash:
    3334
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43 View Post
    Yes. I'm sure those twelve years he spent teaching Constitutional Law were just because he's a masochist.
    I suspect he enjoyed teaching his version of the constitution.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -75
    MAYHEM's Avatar
    Like me

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2011
    Posts:
    678
    vCash:
    3334
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post
    I'm pretty sure the healthcare industry loves the ACA. It forces everyone to get insurance, and gives them an excuse to raise premiums.

    So basically your justification for calling him the worst president ever is working toward killing the coal industry, and he's blocking the Keystone pipeline. Seems legit
    The banks and the construction industries loved it when the fed lowered the standards for government backed mortgages.
    They were building houses and writing mortgages at a rapid pace. How did all that work out ? Other than the banks going broke , The construction companies going broke , the total collapse of the real estate market , and the country going in to the worst economy since the great depression.
    We will soon see the same thing in health care. People that cant afford it will buy insurance run up thousands of dollars worth of health care services then stop paying the insurance premiums because they cant afford them especially now that the costs have risen so dramatically from the ACA.
    So what happens when the insurance company owes the health care providers more than they have collected in premiums ?
    Multiply this times millions of people in the same situation.
    The exact same thing we seen in the housing market.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -76
    MAYHEM's Avatar
    Like me

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2011
    Posts:
    678
    vCash:
    3334
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    To be fair, your definition of constitutional is not all that close to established judicial precedent.

    I get your dilemma, don't get me wrong. I wish we could start again on what the 2nd amendment means. But I don't sit here and say that when a gun control law is struck down that the judges are wantonly violating the constitution.
    Judicial precedent does not rewrite the constitution.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
    There is nothing ambiguous about this.
    There are people who try to cloud the issue but it is a very simple sentence that can only mean one thing.
    The only way that the people of any country are truly free is if the citizens have equal power to the government. That has been proven many times over in this world.
    When a judge strikes down gun control laws he is supporting the constitution.
    When elected officials try to introduce these laws it is treason.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -77
    MAYHEM's Avatar
    Like me

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2011
    Posts:
    678
    vCash:
    3334
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    The Constitution doesn't say that it has to be interpreted according to what these guys were thinking as they wrote it. And it shouldn't, because that's an impossible standard. I mean, do we really expect future generations to be able to determine the intent of the ACA when people today can't even agree on what it really means?

    That's why judicial precedent is really the whole game. It's the actual law, because the law as written is always functionally incomplete. You're free to disagree with precedent -- and I do often -- but it's asinine to take a dump on the president, Congress and the SCOTUS for following the "rules", so to speak. How about we take a **** on the rules instead?
    So if some deranged judge rules that people who call themselves "the Walrus" are no longer allowed to vote you are ok with that ?
    You wouldn't feel that your constitutional rights took precedent over this judges ruling ?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -78
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,568
    vCash:
    40556
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MAYHEM View Post
    Judicial precedent does not rewrite the constitution.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
    There is nothing ambiguous about this.
    There are people who try to cloud the issue but it is a very simple sentence that can only mean one thing.
    The only way that the people of any country are truly free is if the citizens have equal power to the government. That has been proven many times over in this world.
    When a judge strikes down gun control laws he is supporting the constitution.
    When elected officials try to introduce these laws it is treason.
    Sure, buddy.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -79
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,568
    vCash:
    40556
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MAYHEM View Post
    So if some deranged judge rules that people who call themselves "the Walrus" are no longer allowed to vote you are ok with that ?
    You wouldn't feel that your constitutional rights took precedent over this judges ruling ?
    And where in judicial precedent has it been established that you can take away someone's right to vote because of their name?

    I mean, I get that you're going to try to fling crap at the wall but at least fling it at a point I'm making. I'm saying that judicial precedent on the whole supports gun rights, not gun control. I wish that weren't so but I have to live with it. The point I was making to Buddy -- and I'll make it to you, too -- is that the text of the Constitution itself is not really as important as the precedence for what the text means. And this is a good thing. A necessary thing. Because the Constitution is really, really vague.

    Whole books have been written on what "necessary and proper" means or what "due process" means, and modern judges are almost always bound to those precedents regardless of their personal preferences. It's more complicated than just reading two or three words and going "viola!" and thinking you have it all figured out.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -80
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    4,060
    vCash:
    16577
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    And where in judicial precedent has it been established that you can take away someone's right to vote because of their name?

    I mean, I get that you're going to try to fling crap at the wall but at least fling it at a point I'm making. I'm saying that judicial precedent on the whole supports gun rights, not gun control. I wish that weren't so but I have to live with it. The point I was making to Buddy -- and I'll make it to you, too -- is that the text of the Constitution itself is not really as important as the precedence for what the text means. And this is a good thing. A necessary thing. Because the Constitution is really, really vague.

    Whole books have been written on what "necessary and proper" means or what "due process" means, and modern judges are almost always bound to those precedents regardless of their personal preferences. It's more complicated than just reading two or three words and going "viola!" and thinking you have it all figured out.
    I agree with everything you have said except that today's politicians follow the rules. Come on man, they scoff at the rules and try like hell to bend the rules to their will. The ****ing lawyers are running this country by "creatively" interpreting the constitution and laws. This goes for both sides and it pisses me off. Additionally, I think you absolutely have to consider the intention of the law when applying it otherwise, you are most likely being "creative"and are just trying to impose your will on someone else.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Court Documents: Confirm right of president to de-classify documents.
    By Section126 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-09-2006, 01:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •