|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6620
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Please show me where
Apr 16, 2014, 10:28 PM
|
|
this document is saying Coach Swinney is violating the Constitution. It is a stretch to say the 1st amendment because the last time I check he wasn't in congress.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf
|
|
|
|
 |
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Please show me where
Apr 16, 2014, 10:30 PM
|
|
That's what case law is for. There are literally thousands of scenarios that aren't explicitly mentioned in that document that have been decided over the years by the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6620
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yes and the court has been wrong before
Apr 16, 2014, 10:34 PM
|
|
and they're wrong on this and hopefully it will right it's wrong. The way it's being applied is wrong and anyone he reads it can see that its not that hard to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Yes and the court has been wrong before
Apr 16, 2014, 10:36 PM
|
|
Oh they've absolutely been wrong before --- or rather, they've overturned decisions. I have no idea what they would decide were this case to go to court today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3245]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7659
Joined: 9/21/13
|
Re: Yes and the court has been wrong before
Apr 16, 2014, 10:37 PM
|
|
If we can't shut down Obamacare I have little hope of a different conclusion being reached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: Yes and the court has been wrong before
Apr 17, 2014, 12:23 AM
|
|
Do not help the needy. Do not care for sick. Do not love thy neighbor.
How right you are to espouse such "Christian" values.
And to all you Founding Fathers and creators the Constitution folk... what is a deist?
Hint it does not = guaranteed Christian.
This was a post by a ### proud progressive liberal, Christian Clemson alum and native of Greenville, SC. So hurl the liberal label at me all you want... because
If you hunt, thank a liberal as they fight to protect land and environment that your game thrive on
If you like the beach, thank a liberal bc they fight to preserve the wetlands and the coast from too much development
If you like clean water, thank a liberal.
If you like free enterprise and fair business practices to avoid monopolies, thank a liberal.
If you're glad your Mom, sister, daughter, girlfriend, aunt, grandmother can vote or earn a living or have a seat at the "equal chance in life" table, thank a liberal.
If you are glad students lke Sammy, KJ, CJ, TBoyd, Greg Buckner, Homer Jordan, Jeff Davis and others were allowed to even apply to and attend Clemson, thank a liberal.
Small minds = small achievements
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [110]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12
Joined: 1/26/13
|
Re: Yes and the court has been wrong before
Apr 17, 2014, 8:36 AM
|
|
my thoughts is you should thank a soldier. they are the ones that paved the way for these rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6620
Joined: 11/30/98
|
They've been wrong!
Apr 16, 2014, 10:46 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yes and the court has been wrong before ] |
|
The court upheld laws in the country not allowing women the right to own property or vote, allowing men to own other men, allowing the government to sterilize those who they choose. The latter as late as the 1950's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57060]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39678
Joined: 11/12/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 10:37 PM
|
|
Well, perhaps. But the document that lists "free exercise" also lists the Supreme Court as the body responsible for interpreting these matters in the landscape of the law. So the credibility is self-circulating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 10:51 PM
|
|
I would love to see that text. No where in the constitution does it give SCOTUS that power. It does not empower them to interpret anything or expand upon amendments or even come to a conclusion on what the founders meant.
Would love to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:00 PM
|
|
Someone has to interpret laws that aren't specifically enumerated in a centuries old document. Per article three, "judicial power" is given to "one supreme Court" ("and in such inferior courts" which makes the SC the de facto body of judicial power in the U.S.).
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Case law is a real thing and expounds on the original Constitution. The Supreme Court has been given de facto power when it comes to deciding matters where there are differences of interpretation. I'm not going to hash out whether ONLY things that are listed in the Constitution should be law, or vice versa, because that's a different matter completely and that ship has already sailed. It is and always has been such that the SC decides the verdict when there are conflicting interpretations of the mother document.
It may not be listed there in that form, but that's how "judicial power" - which IS listed there - has been interpreted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3245]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7659
Joined: 9/21/13
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:05 PM
|
|
The Constitution is pretty much the only legal document that I can think of where Original Intent isn't the one and only way to interpret its meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:08 PM
|
|
Exactly!!!
What other laws in this country, fed, state or local, are a judge allowed to "interpret"? SCOTUS only has that exception. Sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.*** ] |
|
Well, do you see all the folks that have been disagreeing on what the first amendment means for the past few days?
Someone has to be responsible for settling that argument. Guy A says 'it's pretty clear what it means - it means this' and Guy B says 'it's pretty clear what it means - it means that.' Who's right? It's just words.
People will always argue over words and semantics. My contention is just that the Supreme Court is the body responsible for resolving those conflicts of interpretation. Something I don't think anyone can agree with based on the fact that a "Supreme Court decision" exists at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:12 PM
|
|
That's where SCOTUS is suppose to say "it mean exactly what it #### says"
The constitution is very specific. And if something isn't clear then it is up to congress to pass an amendment to clarify not SCOTUS to interpret.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:16 PM
|
|
The job of the judicial system IS to interpret the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:18 PM
|
|
No it is not. Again provide the text where it says so. Just because that's what you think or what's always been accepted doesn't make it true. SCOTUS job is to rule on whether laws abide by the constitution as it is written not to interpret the constitution.
Show me the text and I'll agree. That's all you have to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:20 PM
|
|
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:31 PM
|
|
Which article and section? Don't give me a web address. I don't want to know what a website says. What does the constitution say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:38 PM
|
|
It's right there in Justice Hughes decision. Don't they just staple it to the back and read on through? lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:21 PM
[ in reply to Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.*** ] |
|
There is no text. I've conceded at this point that I'm arguing from a perspective of how things are and not how they should be. You seem to be more well read on this --- and I commend you for schooling me on it. But I think it's clear at this point that case law will serve as the practical basis for how things are run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:32 PM
|
|
Sadly you are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.*** ] |
|
That's not how the constitution even works.
If it's not enumerated the 9th amendment kicks in. The constitution only empowers SCOTUS to rule on the law as it is written. It doesn allow them to interpret it to mean what they think, investigate it to conclude what the founders may have thought nor exand upon it. To do so is legislating from the bench and unconstitutional in itself.
Of course we do this anyway and the only way to stop it would be an amendment. Of course then SCOTUS could simply rule the amendment invalid based on some bogus interpretation.
This is, along with the interstate commerce clause, are the biggest failures of our constitution and they're biggies.
Our SCOTUS could be a dictator if wanted to be and it basically is in combination with a 2 party system. They pass the bills and SCOTUS twists the constitution around them.
But like I said, as the constitution is written, SCOTUS does not have that power. They have simply assumed it and there's no higher court to stop them from doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:19 PM
|
|
Well, I walked right into that one in a hasty interpretation of the SC's role. And you're correct.
I'm for state's rights as much as anyone, but I was under the impression that hasn't been a "thing" on matters like these in a long time. And because - like you said - that there's no higher power to decide, the importance of case law is just a reflection of the status quo. Maybe that's overly pragmatic, but it doesn't change the fact that issues like these are and will be decided by the SC.
Because the SC doesn't have anyone to tell them to delegate those rights to the states, they remain the de facto decision makers here. It's one of the flaws, to be sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:29 PM
|
|
This very argument (SCOTUS power to interpret the constitution) was debated shortly after it's ratification. Because there was no balance of power to take the interpretation away from the interpreter the opposition caved. The only alternative was to scrap and start over and that was unreasonable and would have been a losing battle.
An amendment likely wouldn't work because SCOTUS would simply rule that they interpret the constitution as to give them power to interpret and the amendment would be in contradiction.
In other words we're screwed and are at the mercy of SCOTUS, a life long appointment seat. (Another huge fail on the framers part btw)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:33 PM
|
|
Seems that way. Admittedly, my only education in Constitutional law is from the media side of things, where Case Law governs pretty much every thing. I honestly hadn't even thought about the 9th as it pertained to any of this. But your points are well received and I shan't be so hasty to "Ctrl+F" the term "Supreme Court" next time 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: and they choose to ignore the "free exercise" part.***
Apr 16, 2014, 11:37 PM
|
|
I should have said both 9th and 10th. Both combined are important in regard to assumptions being made of the constitution. The 10th more so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8888
Joined: 10/19/11
|
Re: Please show me where
Apr 17, 2014, 12:31 AM
|
|
this organization is also attacking Troy University for building a dormitory that will be used for students of any faith (or lack there of) that want to have open dialouge about relegion. FFRF's reason is because they are saying the school is really only building it for Christians, even though no one from the school has said anything of that nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [61754]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39614
Joined: 12/16/01
|
So, they are making noise just for publicity.
Apr 17, 2014, 8:10 AM
|
|
They are the Westboro Baptist of the atheist realm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Since when has the constitution mattered in this country?***
Apr 17, 2014, 8:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: Since when has the constitution mattered in this country?***
Apr 17, 2014, 8:17 AM
|
|
O it matters to the honest GOP but not to the crooked demos/libs and especially osamaobama
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19586]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17257
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: Since when has the constitution mattered in this country?***
Apr 17, 2014, 8:40 AM
|
|
Yeah because Bush certainly followed the constitution?
lmao...lifefoot you need to take your head out of the sand and take a look around. None of them are following it. Except a handful of senators and reps.
And maybe the libertarian and constitutional parties.
Message was edited by: CUAtTheFinishLine®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
