Posted on 05/15/2006 8:40:01 AM PDT by Marxbites
It seems that you wish to ignore who determines which "acts of the legislature" are "repugnant."
Not at all. I think you have no real rebuttal to my comments above, so you are raising this 'point' in order to save face.
Alright, I call.
Who do you say determines which "acts of the legislature" are "repugnant."
We the people; -- we all do, as exemplified by booze prohibition. The repugnant Volstead Act was enforced & upheld by all fed & state 'authorities', but the people flat out refused to obey.
You have a busted flush, - pay the pot.
Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution and was, obviously, not "repugnant" to it until the thirteenth amendment.
That's debatable. The founders knew slavery was 'peculiar' in a republic, thus they deferred action on it till 1808.
Ok, again, I call. Let's hear your debate. (The Thirteenth Amendment wasn't until 1865, not 1808)
Check out Art I sec 9, and Art V.
Nuts!!
When did "We the people" change the Constitution in the manner specified granting Congress authority over all things remotely related to "commerce"? The "We the people" that established the Constitution is not "Congress, the President and the federal judiciary". They didn't exist until "We the people" created them.
There is a difference that seems to escape you concerning the difference between morally repugnant and the term "repugnant to the Constituion." (And as before, I wasn't defending it, just pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning).
Good grief; - you're defending Dred Scott.
Until it was overturned, this was the law.
Keep on begging that morally repugnant question, Lucky...
That is the whole issue here.
Scott is a USSC opinion that said blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."
[Scott] was not "repugnant" to the Constitution until it was overturned. (And no I wasn't defending it, just pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning).
Gotta love the way you can find an [unspecified] fallacy in my reasoning at the same time you imagine you're not defending the indefensible.
The authoritarian mind works in mysterious ways..
It seems that you wish to ignore who determines which "acts of the legislature" are "repugnant."
Not at all. I think you have no real rebuttal to my comments above, so you are raising this 'point' in order to save face.
Alright, I call.
Who do you say determines which "acts of the legislature" are "repugnant."
We the people; -- we all do, as exemplified by booze prohibition. The repugnant Volstead Act was enforced & upheld by all fed & state 'authorities', but the people flat out refused to obey.
US Constitution, Preamble We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added] US Constitution, Article VI 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. [in part and emphasis added] "We the people" have established the Constitution and the three branches of government therewith, including Article V to change it. "We the people" do not obey the supreme law of the land or declare portions of it "repugnant" only if, and when, it suits us. Such a course was tried in 1860 and was soundly defeated. Rather, "We the people," through our elected representatives change those portions of the law deemed to be necessary to change at such time and place and in such manner as allowed by the supreme law of the land.
Another bizarre reply. Nothing in your words above even mentions my rejoiner about prohibition & the Volsted Act.
Are you OK?
There are over three hundred postings in this thread. If you cannot cite me one example of a company raising its prices after driving competitors out with lower prices, without attracting new competitors once the prices rose, I will assume that you are blowing smoke.
If you cannot be be bothered to read, then it is your loss.
Fine, -- good to see you imagining you've saved face. I've been concerned about some of your replies.
Who do you say determines which "acts of the legislature" are "repugnant."
We the people; -- we all do, as exemplified by booze prohibition. The repugnant Volstead Act was enforced & upheld by all fed & state 'authorities', but the people flat out refused to obey.
The Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment.
No kidding.
During the tenure of Prohibition, organized crime benefited tremendously by defying the law. I suppose if you want to class organized crime as "we the people," your previous argument has some merit.
Lots of ordinary people ignored prohibition. It was very 'unorganized' crime on a very local level.
The same is basically true with the Volstead Act prohibiting the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcoholic beverages within the United States. The Volstead Act was also repealed.
No kidding?
It would seem that the Constitution was followed in both cases.
What was your point?
My point was answering your rather inane question, lucky boy.. -- Now you've got me concerned again about your memory...
Need help?
"Under this Constitution" Congress can regulate commerce "among the several states", not "all the commerce, anywhere, all the time". You're attributing to them authority they don't have.
Moreover, you've avoided answering the question posed. Just who do you mean when you say "We the people"?
You start off saying "We the people, through our elected representatives" established the Constitution. That means the State legislatures. This same "We the people" have the authroity to amend that Constitution. Then you attribute the authority of "We the people, through our elected representatives" to acts of Congress, signed by the President and accepted by the Courts.
It's a little exercise in sophistry designed to make acts of Congress appear to carry the weight and authority of constitutional amendments.
I am unconcerned with "saving face."
Wonderful. Then perhaps you could comment about my post #347:
--- Good grief; - you're defending Dred Scott.
Until it was overturned, this was the law.
Keep on begging that morally repugnant question, Lucky...
That is the whole issue here.
Scott is a USSC opinion that said blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."
[Scott] was not "repugnant" to the Constitution until it was overturned. (And no I wasn't defending it, just pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning).
Gotta love the way you can find an [unspecified] fallacy in my reasoning at the same time you imagine you're not defending the indefensible.
The authoritarian mind works in mysterious ways..
-347-
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.