Posted on 02/03/2006 1:05:52 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
Oh, but it is correct and you continue to prove it with every additional post. Again, I would advise you to look at the facts before commenting again. Otherwise, you are going to continue making yourself look more and more silly.
You are so smart, however, that I will be careful not to respond to your comments so that you may continue believing you're the smartest Wildcat in the world.
Well, I don't know about "smartest Wildcat in the world", but based on that line it isn't a stretch to say I'm smarter than you are.
bttt
I write books and you don't.
I am a veteran and you're not.
I always vote Republican and I don't know about you.
I am the smartest person in my neighborhood and you're not.
My children all have graduate degrees and yours don't.
I am worth millions and you're not.
I have a small yacht and dock and you don't.
I drive Mercedes and you don't.
My property taxes are more than you probably make in a year.
You are the one who keeps responding to my responses and you have the unmitigated gall to point out my resposes to you and say I'm silly.
I may appear silly, but I do have impeccable credentials.
You don't even have a paragraph about yourself on your "about" page.
Your honor, I am positively through with this witness!
You are indeed, very, very stupid - and childish. That last post of yours removes all doubt.
Get a load of post 163.
#163.......
LOL
Wow...
I wish I was as cool as you were.....
uMMMMM no I don't. At least I don't ALWAYS act like a child on this forum.....
Hey all, take a look at post #163. It's a good one LOL
It is also beyond 1866, and beyond the idea of The United States are, and on to the reality of The United States is.
Then again, since you're using Pervear, I'd like to point out that the Court HEARD Pervear, and issued a judgement...so it acknowledged jurisdiction prior to 1925.
Section 2. -- The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.
All cases ~~ arising under this Constitution.
The Eight Amendment is a part of "this Constitution"; the case in question was not filed prior to 1925.
There was no "activism" in the Court finding the Eight Amendment to apply to the States, there was a Court acknowledging the Eight as part of "this Constitution".
"This Constitution" is the Supreme Law of the Land, it protects the citizens from the power of the Federal government, and charges the Federal government with the protection of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States, even when it has to protect them from their own State government.
The Constitution is about the people, not about political idealism or political Parties...and the was the original intent of the Founders.
I would bother referring you to the words of the Framers themselves but as with most Republicans, you only intone the Framers as a catchphrase instead of understanding their words. Suffice it to say Madison himself introduced the idea that the Bill of Rights would apply to the separate and sovereign states. Care to guess what happened to that idea? As Barron v. Baltimore (1833) confirmed, until 1897 (5th Amendment case) only the most addle headed yanks would even believe the Constitution applied to the states.
FYI, until the 1920s the Court had denied the First Amendment didn't apply to the states either. But that's just historical fact, so don't let that get in the way of your rant either
The Constitution is about the people, not about political idealism or political Parties...and the was the original intent of the Founders.
Funny thing that. It was about the people and their relationship to the national government. If that wasn't the case, there really would be no reason to establish sovereign states with their own internal republican governments. I realize you Hamiltonians that have taken over the conservative movement would wish it otherwise, however you will not be able to provide statements from the majority of Founders that would agree with your point
Go ahead and search. No, check that. Rather just make a statement using no historical backing, grab a line from the Constitution, and carry on with your argument, such that it is..
LOL.
Elitist are you?
"If that wasn't the case, there really would be no reason to establish sovereign states with their own internal republican governments"
You have no clue about proper management, do you?
The Constitution is not some mystic document that only the anointed can understand, it's written in plain English and quite easy to understand.
I'm not a "Hamiltonian", nor am I a "Republican"...I am a US citizen, and I understand my Constitution.
The SCOTUS has jurisdiction on this case because it arises under the Constitution, they had jurisdiction in 1866 when they took on Pervear...you just don't like the ruling on this one.
The SCOTUS has jurisdiction...period.
Perhaps you should consider moving to 1924 or earlier, I'm sure you'd be happier then.
It isn't a catch phrase...it's the Constitution.
This article and entire thread were to be considered as humorous repartee about Justice Alito's first case. Unfortunately you just didn't get the joke and certainly failed to understand my #163, et al.
No, just one of the originalists left over from the Reagan revolution. Granted he did not do as much as he could have done all things considered (i.e. wiping up the last of the Cold War, an enemy created in part by Wilson's intervention in WWI), but I'd put him head and shoulders over this President.
You have no clue about proper management, do you?
Who said anything about 'proper management'? If you have any of the papers from the Framers, even the Federalist papers, I would suggest you look to them. The Framers did not intend for the Constitution to override the separate states. Instead it was merely a document outlining the limitations on the federal government.
The Constitution is not some mystic document that only the anointed can understand, it's written in plain English and quite easy to understand.
Yes, too bad Republicans and Democrats have apparently forgotten how to read. Better to just invoke a few great names, paraphrase their words out of context to argue your point and move on.
I'm not a "Hamiltonian", nor am I a "Republican"...I am a US citizen, and I understand my Constitution.
Any citizen of a respective state that considers the federal government to be supreme over all the states is indeed a Hamiltonian. What the Framers would consider a beyond ardent Federalist. Considering the centralization of power some here would gladly put in the Executive Branch, it's becoming closer to Hamilton's vision of the government than any of the other men who signed that document would have wanted.
The SCOTUS has jurisdiction on this case because it arises under the Constitution, they had jurisdiction
Well I can consider from your response you didn't read Pervear or the majority decision on it. Let me put it in words as clearly as I can for you. They rejected the idea that the 8th Amendment, or any of the Amendments for that matter applied to the states. Just as they rejected the idead in 1833 in Barron. Only after 1897 did SCOTUS 'find' any of the Amendments applied to the states.
But let's take your opinion the Bill of Rights and the whole Constitution applies to the states as fact (which it isn't). If you believe the 2nd Amendment applies to the separate and sovereign states, get a case together, take it to SCOTUS, and see what happens. Of course several local municipalities (NY comes to mind) have outlawed certain weapons within their borders. If the 2nd Amendment, and the whole Bill of Rights, applies to the states, it should be easy enough to get those bans thrown out.
Now either
A) those laws are unconstitutional and have never been tested in the courts (which they have) or
B) the Constitution as a whole does not apply to the states and was never intended to
It's one or the other, there's no middle ground here.
It isn't a catch phrase...it's the Constitution.
Yes and I would suggest you read the words of the majority of the men who argued over it and eventually signed it.
If you would doubt my argument, I would suggest you would also reread the dissent by Justice Thomas in the Oregon decision.
Was part of the "humor" that you let your butt get whipped for 171 posts?
I think not.
You're forgetting the 14th Amendment. States haven't been sovereign since the Civil War.
Very true. This was an example of an activist court clearly contravening the express intent of the framers of the Amendment, who EXPLICITLY made clear, on numerous occaisions, that the purpose of the Amendment was, among other things, to apply the Bill of rights to the states.
The incorporation theory is a manufacture of progressive 20th century SCOTUS rulings.
Wrong on two counts.
First, the doctrine incorporation was rehabilitated in the last two decades of the 19th century by right-wing courts striking down leftist state laws regulating wages and hours, on the grounds that such laws violated the freedom of contract, implicit in the 9th Amendment and incorporated by the 14th.
Second, incorporation was not invented by the courts, it was invented by the framers of the Amendment. The courts, unfortunately, had ignored this intent for three decades.
Oh, I have been quite entertained by you - in fact we are all laughing at you. And I laugh again at you. You now realize you've been wrong, apparently, and now try to pass it off as you were just joking the whole time. Right. LOL!
You mean spend big, nominate O'Connor, give amnesty to illegal aliens, expand the Federal government, interventionist Reagan?
Now you claim to be a neocon?
"Instead it was merely a document outlining the limitations on the federal government."
It charges the Federal government with the protection of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States, that includes protecting the rights of those citizens from being violated by the State governments.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
That's the original intent of the Founders. set in writing, in what is without question the Supreme Law of the Land.
Indeed, during the discussions held within Congress, some, though not all, did state this very thing. After researching that far, one could assume that was the intent. However two issues arise. That sentiment was not the majority and if you look to the speeches of these same men to their constituents back in their home (as reported by local papers of the time) they stated the exact opposite, one even going as far as to state the 14th would only apply to Southern states and not the more 'enlightened' northern states.
So either they were lying to their own constituency or they were lying in Congress. In either case, not the paragons of virtue. As many of these men were the worthless Radical Republicans immediately following the War, I could care less what their view was. For 60 years, SCOTUS held the standard the 14th Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.