There you go again.
"Read the 10th & the 14th. The 'final arbiter' of Constitutionality is whether our rights to life, liberty, or property are being infringed upon by powers not delegated."
You conceded defeat on this point by only putting my partial response. Let's try again sonny. Your above quote is correct. Unfortunately for you the US Supreme Court is entity that decides constitutional issues in this country. This point alone defeats your sophomoric analysis.
"There is no power to block roads [for DUI control] delegated to ~any~ legislative body in the USA."
Sure there is. It is done all over the country. The state laws stating this have been taken to the Supreme Court and they have ruled DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.
Me:..and who decides these things? The US Supreme Court.
You: "Nope, 'we the people' are the final arbiter."
That would only be true in a pure democracy, we live in a republic with a constitution that divides powers into three branches of govt. (Executive,legislative, judicial)
"It's funny indeed that you claim I've lost this argument, seeing you've agreed that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be infringed upon by powers not delegated, -- was correct."
You have lost the argument. It's about a prima facie as you could want. Then you compound your loss by committing fallacy after fallacy. For instance in the above point, you, for the 2nd time, left out my complete answer. lol. You are defeated and you know it.
"Court 'rulings' are opinions and do not make it "SO".
Umm, you really need to do more research or lose your handle name. You dishonor that person. Supreme Court rulings interpret law when there are questions as to the intention of the Constitution and founders. They in fact the final ruling on disputes in law.
Nope. There I go, - yet.
Read the 10th & the 14th. The 'final arbiter' of Constitutionality is whether our rights to life, liberty, or property are being infringed upon by powers not delegated.
Correct.
..and who decides these things? The US Supreme Court.
Thank you for conceding to the truth.
There is no power to block roads [for DUI control] delegated to ~any~ legislative body in the USA.
You conceded defeat on this point by only putting my partial response.
Wrong, I posted your entire response with part of my comment after your reply of "Correct."
Let's try again. Your above quote is correct.
Thank you for conceding to the truth.
There is no power to block roads [for DUI control] delegated to ~any~ legislative body in the USA.
Unfortunately for you the US Supreme Court is entity that decides constitutional issues in this country. This point alone defeats your sophomoric analysis.
Sophomoric point - in that the USSC issues opinions that in themselves are not laws, -- thus legislative or executive power must concur in the Courts 'ruling'. --- Even then if 'we the people' disagree, [as we did with booze prohibition] the governments position is "null & void". - See Marbury.
There is no power to block roads [for DUI control] delegated to ~any~ legislative body in the USA.
Sure there is. It is done all over the country. The state laws stating this have been taken to the Supreme Court and they have ruled DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.
And the people of 11 States [so far] have disagreed and have ruled DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.
Me:..and who decides these things? The US Supreme Court.
You: "Nope, 'we the people' are the final arbiter."
-- we live in a republic with a constitution that divides powers into three branches of govt. (Executive,legislative, judicial)
Yep, I've made that argument, and you agree once again.
It's funny indeed that you claim I've lost this argument, seeing you've agreed that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be infringed upon by powers not delegated, -- was correct.
You have lost the argument. It's about a prima facie as you could want. Then you compound your loss by committing fallacy after fallacy. For instance in the above point, you, for the 2nd time, left out my complete answer. lol. You are defeated and you know it.
Dream on. -- I've answered you completely; -- feel free to claim otherwise.
"Court 'rulings' are opinions and do not make it "SO". Nor does writing it in all caps. -- Try stamping your feet.
Supreme Court rulings interpret law when there are questions as to the intention of the Constitution and founders. They in fact the final ruling on disputes in law.
As booze prohibition proved, even a constitutional amendment 'interpreted' as valid by the USSC cannot make a "final ruling". -- We the people overruled a repugnant amendment [a supreme law] by civil disobedience, and then repeal.
All you neo-prohibitionists need to deal with that fact.