quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

What you think is just is of little consequence.  We are discussing the constitution and the law.

quote:

If you will refer to your own post above where it says, in blue, "Appellate Jurisdiction" in law and fact.  For those whom English is not their primary language it means the court decides what is law and what is fact.  This gives the court constitutional authority to say what is and is not constitutional. 
As I pointed out in my post, which you quoted,
The oath of office for a supreme court justice requires him/her to uphold the constitution.  If he/she is to do that they must of, necessity , interpret just what the constitution means and by extension which laws the congress passes fit the constraints placed on it by the constitution. 
This is usually a discussion carried on in high school history class and for you not to be aware of how the logic of judicial review is supported by the constitution  speaks poorly of the educational institutions you attended.

H. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: JumpingJax

I'm all for personal responsibility - but at what point do you draw the line?   What about the person who is unable to care for themselves.   Take a person with physical or mental disabilities? 

quote:

Do we not as just simple human beings have a responsibility to help care for those less fortunate this us?  

quote:

Should we not have some social programs to ensure that children don't stare regardless of what poor actions their parents may be making?  Or do you really think everyone should fend for themselves.

quote:

Consider this - You may be all big and strong now,  self sufficient.  But all it takes is one unfortunate incident for any of that to go away.   Let's hope it never happens but bad things do happen and the right thing to do is help those that truly need help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejale

i would just like to say that, i am glad to be living in these times where there is a Black Man for President.
i am glad that times are going to change, NOT just for America, but i believe for the WORLD.
i am glad that He is interested in talking to leaders etc. from other countries instead of acting like a bully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

How many arguments are you looking to lose in one afternoon.Fort Sumter was a federal installation before secession...it remained so after secession.

quote:

Federal property as opposed to part of the United States....please before going further do all of us a favor and read Lincoln's first inaugural...in which he promised to molest no one

quote:

to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic....

quote:

If you are still unconvinced of Lincoln's greatness you might want to take a look at his 2nd inaugural,a more charitable political speech,considering the circumstances,you will not find....

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

That looks a lot like the "Texas two step".
Since you did not produce or trade for your space on the life boat it is time for you to learn to swim.  In the mean time the rest of us on the life boat will share the food and water we had originally planed to share with you.

ah, so we're just adding variables to this situation willy nilly, are we?

quote:

By your line of reasoning you are not allowed to drive on public highways since the part you paid for with your fuel tax would not buy a cubic inch of concrete.
You are not entitled to attend public school or private school since both of them have been paid for in some part by someone besides you.
Perhaps you ought to go back and reread Ayn Rand in her entirety.  She speaks not only of individual rights but also of the individual's responsibilities.  Libertarianism is not an "A la cart" philosophy.  You either take it all or none at all.  You are not allowed to pick and choose.

by my line of reasoning there should be no public property whatsoever. and no, I am not a Randian...though it is a common misconception. I would suggest you read into the Austrian School of Economics and anarcho-capitalism before you make claims about my philosophy being 'a la cart'.

we don't think it's ethical to take anything - we are never accused of picking and choosing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejale

if you have any Black blood in you then you are Black.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejale

if you have any Black blood in you then you are Black. There is no escaping that. His father is Black.

quote:

However for you to understand, i will say a Man with beautiful and wonderful color. Better, a Man that looks like me. (hope that cleared it up for you).

quote:

Second, you cannot say it failed before it even started. He brought the world together. In my opinion that is a start far more greater than anything else. Since when were people in UK, Berlin, Iraq, Iran etc. etc. interested in such an election. At least any that i myself remember. He got the young people out there to vote. Give him a chance.

quote:

Third, i am happy that he will not act like a bully and speak with others. They are bullies because nobody ever even pretended to see things from their POV. Im NOT saying to agree with it or anything. Im also NOT saying that they are innocent people (the terrorist you speak of), however neither is the United States. Im just saying, i am glad that he will at least give them an inch instead of writing someone off because you do not understand them or have no desire to look at their POV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

Mike, in fairness to him, the Bush haters never gave him a chance either.  I haven't been able to go out in public for 8 years without someone sounding exactly like that on the other side.
Give Obama a chance to make true his speech and his promises.  If he can do even 1/2 of what he says he wants to do, people will come around.

Not true at all.

I`m the resident rabid bush hater here and at 1st,I thought the two choices we had were pretty good.

Tho a liberal,I woundn`t have minded if McCain was our president and said so.That was in the beginning when I thought of him as one of the few cons I liked and had respect for.

I thought,cool,we`ll have an honorable campaigner and decent man who won`t go dirty,like bushco. and the rove-cons did with him.

Boy was I wrong.Jesus he turned out to be a real putz.And picking the fundie w/ lipstick on told me McCain had remarried the wackos he divorced during the primaries.

I for one will never forgive McCain for going ugly .

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

What you think is just is of little consequence.  We are discussing the constitution and the law.

what I think and what supreme court justices think are both of little consequence. the only thing that is of consequence is what is written in the constitution. let's not confuse this issue, we are not discussing the constitution AND the law...we are merely discussing the constitution - as the constitution IS the law.
Once again you are wrong.  The constitution authorizes the Congress to make laws.  These laws are not part of the constitution but they are authorized by the constitution.  Thus the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over controversies in both the constitution and laws authorized by the constitution.

quote:

If you will refer to your own post above where it says, in blue, "Appellate Jurisdiction" in law and fact.  For those whom English is not their primary language it means the court decides what is law and what is fact.  This gives the court constitutional authority to say what is and is not constitutional. 
As I pointed out in my post, which you quoted,
The oath of office for a supreme court justice requires him/her to uphold the constitution.  If he/she is to do that they must of, necessity , interpret just what the constitution means and by extension which laws the congress passes fit the constraints placed on it by the constitution. 
This is usually a discussion carried on in high school history class and for you not to be aware of how the logic of judicial review is supported by the constitution  speaks poorly of the educational institutions you attended.

H. 

for those of whom english is not their first language, I will dole out this bit of information: read the entire sentence before you declare what the sentence means.

" In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

'In all other cases before mentioned' is rather important, do you not think. this sentence means that the court shall have 'appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact' on the 'before mentioned cases'. now what cases were previously mentioned. well...the only sentence preceding this in 3.2 states that 'In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.'

*yawn*

you can't pick and choose...
You seem to be the one doing the picking and choosing.   
3/2 says: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 and which shall be made under their authority;'In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.'
If you are going to quote a sentence how about you quote the whole sentence.
3/2 is further modified by the 11 amendment.
Modified not repealed.