Quote:
Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
Once again... tryign to use obfuscation and confusion to prove somthing that is untrure. I'm skmming this... perhaps you could point me to the unconstitutional paragraph??
So I was wrong... I did not follow the finfance reform case So yep I missed that. But what part of THE COURTS ruling is unconstitional?
Your grabbing at straws dude.... none of this really has anything to do with the draft. Its called obfuscation. Lawyers do that a lot. The sad thing is I think you really believe that the constitution is going to be shredded.
|
You admitted you were wrong, thankyou. Now let's get on to other things.
The supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution and review legislation for constitutionality. That's their job, they are a "constitutional convention in continuous session." (Marbury vs Madison)
You said:
Quote:
|
The moment the supreme court stops upholding the constitution I'll buy the bag of dung your selling.
|
I said:
Quote:
|
The McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. The PATRIOT Act. Have I made my point?
|
These cases are examples of laws that are clearly unconstitutional, and that the supreme court has reviewed and upheld. Since the laws are upheld, they are deemed to not be unconstitutional. Thus the supreme court has already stopped unholding the constitution.
You're the one obfuscating by bringing up a bunch of details that are meaningless to the discussion at hand. For example, the whole "writ of certiori" argument you tried to carry one and which I essentially ignored. Check the mirror before you accuse anyone else of something.
__________________
Alt Journals, Blogs for Perverts!
Fitness and nutrition writer, and UNIX/Linux Sys Ad in training
"Just as a man who has fallen into a heap of filth ought to seek the great pond of water covered with lotuses, which is near by: even so seek thou for the great deathless lake of Nirvana to wash off the defilement of wrong. If the lake is not sought, it is not the fault of the lake."