quote:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States

quote:

quote:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States 

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

quote:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States 

And this is precisely where we must agree to disagree.  I do not feel that these, and many other laws, are anything that the federal level of governemnt should be mixing into. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

  Once more I want someone to try and square Paul's supposed adoration of the US Constitution with Section 3 of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 and 2007. Don't try and argue that it doesn't plainly say what it says. Don't wax philosophical on states rights vs. federalism. Simply explain the fact that Paul sponsored a bill that is obviously and without doubt unconstitutional in such an outrageous fashion.

 
Sorry, can't do that.  Because I already gave you My opnion.  No philosophical waxing about it.  Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion.
I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states.  The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority.  States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now.  As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. 
Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a  judgement call.  I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

Sorry, can't do that.  Because I already gave you My opnion.  No philosophical waxing about it.  Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion.
I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states.  The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority.  States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now.  As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. 
Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a  judgement call.  I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

  Once more I want someone to try and square Paul's supposed adoration of the US Constitution with Section 3 of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 and 2007. Don't try and argue that it doesn't plainly say what it says. Don't wax philosophical on states rights vs. federalism. Simply explain the fact that Paul sponsored a bill that is obviously and without doubt unconstitutional in such an outrageous fashion.

 
Sorry, can't do that.  Because I already gave you My opnion.  No philosophical waxing about it.  Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion.
I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states.  The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority.  States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now.  As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. 
Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a  judgement call.  I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do.

I'm trying real hard to understand the concept that writing a federal law that specifically tries to keep the federal courts from reviewing issues arising from the enforcement of that law isn't an unconstitutional infringement on the seperation of powers but I just can't make the leap.

Under your theory it would be just great for Congress to pass a law establishing the Church of Ken as the official state religion and add a Section forbidding judicial review. How about a law forbidding any criticism of Congress or the POTUS with such a section? Kind of makes a joke of seperation of powers. Which certainly is not what the Founders intended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

Sorry, can't do that.  Because I already gave you My opnion.  No philosophical waxing about it.  Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion.
I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states.  The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority.  States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now.  As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. 
Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a  judgement call.  I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do.

You are joking aren't you??

The 'states rights' issue has been a smokescreen to try to justify slavery, and denying US citizens their rights to vote, and not be tortured, robbed, and even killed by local authorities. It has been shot down repeatedly in the federal courts. 

You can interpret the intentions of the framers any way you want, and decry the Supreme Court for ruling against such things, but those decisions have kept us free from tyranny as surely as did the Continental Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. 
This is a valid comment.  I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner.  It concerned the abolition of salvery.  Rightly so.  It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land".
I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state.  Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision.  Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. 
This is a valid comment.  I would remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner.  It concerned the abolition of salvery.  Rightly so.  It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land".
I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state.  Yet the federal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision.  Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. 
 
The Thirteenth Amendment
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  
Edited to add the amendment verbiage.  Bold emphasis Mine. 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. 
This is a valid comment.  I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner.  It concerned the abolition of salvery.  Rightly so.  It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land".
I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state.  Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision.  Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. 
 

OK, now I know you are joking... slavery was ended by a terribly destructive war, not an amendment. And in case after case, even with that amendment in place, 'state's rights' remained the rallying cry for segregationists, defending Jim Crow laws, and various violent atrocities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Alright what if Congress passes a law ordering Utah to make the FLDS the state religion of the state with a section forbidding federal review. Are you really ok with that? We have a Constitutionally mandated seperation of powers for a very good reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. 
This is a valid comment.  I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner.  It concerned the abolition of salvery.  Rightly so.  It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land".
I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state.  Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision.  Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. 
 

OK, now I know you are joking... slavery was ended by a terribly destructive war, not an amendment. And in case after case, even with that amendment in place, 'state's rights' remained the rallying cry for segregationists, defending Jim Crow laws, and various violent atrocities.

Yes, and that is one of the purposes of a legally ratified amendment in the first place.  All these things were struck down by SCOTUS because, with the ratification of the thirteenth,  they now had the legal power to address these situations.  It did fall under their authority as a part of the ratified federal law. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Alright what if Congress passes a law ordering Utah to make the FLDS the state religion of the state with a section forbidding federal review. Are you really ok with that? We have a Constitutionally mandated seperation of powers for a very good reason.

Congress cannot make such a law in the first place since it is already against the constitutionally ratified federal law to have a state religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. 
This is a valid comment.  I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner.  It concerned the abolition of salvery.  Rightly so.  It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land".
I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state.  Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision.  Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. 
 

OK, now I know you are joking... slavery was ended by a terribly destructive war, not an amendment. And in case after case, even with that amendment in place, 'state's rights' remained the rallying cry for segregationists, defending Jim Crow laws, and various violent atrocities.

Yes, and that is one of the purposes of a legally ratified amendment in the first place.  All these things were struck down by SCOTUS because, with the ratification of the thirteenth,  they now had the legal power to address these situations.  It did fall under their authority as a part of the ratified federal law. 

You're simply wrong. Jim Crowe was not struck down due to the 13th amendment. Jim Crowe was struck down using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which is precisely the clause used to strike down virtually all states rights arguments and is the bedrock to the right of privacy decision in Griswold v Connecticut and subesquently Roe v Wade. I strongly doubt going anywhere near the 14th will do your argument any good.