|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2006 : 20:27:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
Yes, they would be interpreting state law vs The Const...a power not granted the Supreme Court by ANY provision of our charter.
As hard as you might try to back pedal, you're still just babbling irrelevancies. The US Constitution, directly contrary to the first sentence from your essay in the opening post, requires interpretation. And whether or not the Supreme Court is currently outstepping its originally intended bounds, Article III of the Constitution indeed does empower the judicial branch to be responsible for judgment in cases arising under the Constitution. To effect such judgment, they must absolutely interpret the Constitution.
quote:
Easy to attack the messenger - impossible to attack the message
Maybe you don't understand. The messages, both your essay in the opening post and your complaints about the criticism of it, are bullshit. The essay opens with a blatant falsehood, which virtually destroys any opportunity you might have to communicate any of your following concerns. And your response to the criticism of that has so far amounted to nothing more than whining. Even if the messenger, you, hadn't proven yourself to be a mouthy jackass, the message would still be bullshit.
|
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 18:00:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
Yes, they would be interpreting state law vs The Const...a power not granted the Supreme Court by ANY provision of our charter.
As hard as you might try to back pedal, you're still just babbling irrelevancies. The US Constitution, directly contrary to the first sentence from your essay in the opening post, requires interpretation. And whether or not the Supreme Court is currently outstepping its originally intended bounds, Article III of the Constitution indeed does empower the judicial branch to be responsible for judgment in cases arising under the Constitution. To effect such judgment, they must absolutely interpret the Constitution.
quote:
Easy to attack the messenger - impossible to attack the message
Maybe you don't understand. The messages, both your essay in the opening post and your complaints about the criticism of it, are bullshit. The essay opens with a blatant falsehood, which virtually destroys any opportunity you might have to communicate any of your following concerns. And your response to the criticism of that has so far amounted to nothing more than whining. Even if the messenger, you, hadn't proven yourself to be a mouthy jackass, the message would still be bullshit.
Oh, cut me to the quick. You really put me in my place, didn't you. Is this where I'm supposed to respond to your pointless ad hominem (go look it up) tantrum with a put down of my own.
GeeMack, I'd gladly insult your intelligence, but that's impossible to do, instead it must suffice for me to say that you are a glowing example of the true meaning of brotherhood...thou art, indeed, thy brother's father. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/18/2006 18:05:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 19:02:16 [Permalink]
|
| I'll ask again: without interpreting anything, can you, THoR, tell me what the words "free exercise," "well regulated," "unreasonable," "probable cause," "speedy," "excessive," "cruel and unusual" mean in absolute terms related to the Amendments in which they can be found? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
