• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can a supreme court ruling be unconstitutional?

Poll


  • Total voters
    54
If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?

Technically, no. Who decides whether an opinion is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court. It's a catch 22.

In my opinion, have they ever made decisions that run counter to the Constitution? Of course (including the one today about Miranda).

in the long run though someone has to be the "decider" at the top, and it's them.
 
Technically, no. Who decides whether an opinion is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court. It's a catch 22.

In my opinion, have they ever made decisions that run counter to the Constitution? Of course (including the one today about Miranda).

in the long run though someone has to be the "decider" at the top, and it's them.

Thanks. Thats kind of what I was getting at. I was less concerned about people's opinions about whether they liked one ruling or not and more curious about the actual legal mechanism behind the decisions.
 
Now you want to stick to the topic. How ironic.

Meg.

If you will notice, I had responded to you and zimmer while also responding to this derailment. So yes, I have been sticking to the topic.
 
True, but I was referring to the retarded "living breathing" argument. Libtards no longer consider amendments necessary.

No liberal has called the constitution a "living breathing" document in this thread. It's about whether or not SCOTUS can make unconstitutional rulings.
 
This would be an example LiberalAvenger. Notice that nothing of substance was added to the thread, however an opinion was given.

It sounded more like an insult than an opinion to me, IMO.
 
No liberal has called the constitution a "living breathing" document in this thread. It's about whether or not SCOTUS can make unconstitutional rulings.

Yep. It is about the legal mechanism itself and if it is self defining.
 
What's a libtard?

Technically, no. Who decides whether an opinion is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court. It's a catch 22.

In my opinion, have they ever made decisions that run counter to the Constitution? Of course (including the one today about Miranda).

in the long run though someone has to be the "decider" at the top, and it's them.

Congress has the power to impeach Supreme Court judges, but lacks the fortitude.
 
Provide a quote, in context.

Easy:

These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

No less comprehensive than plenary and indefinite.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html
 

Easier:
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

Home run.
 
Tom Paine made one of the best arguments about the constitution being a "living document" He said that if it was not a living document then we would be cursed with rule by the dead (words to that effect.

Debate: Is the US Constitution a living document, which should change over time? - Helium

The constitution is law though with an amendment process. We aren't "cursed with the rule of the dead." We are blessed with the laws and freedoms that our founding fathers gave to this nation in the constitution. I would say having the constitution as a living document would have us cursed with the whims and feelings of the present generation.
 
Tom Paine made one of the best arguments about the constitution being a "living document" He said that if it was not a living document then we would be cursed with rule by the dead (words to that effect...
Looking over my copy I don't see Paine's signature....

Perhaps you have the libtard version of the Constitution, written in smudged red crayon.
 
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare.

Grand slam. :lol:
 
:lol:


What do you think that means, exactly? Cause I believe you didn't even escape the in-field on that swing.

It means:
an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

To put it even more simply, Congress can't give you money unless they give money to everyone.

Hamilton was arguing authority to spend money on a federal agency to study agriculture; something that would benefit everyone.
 
To put it even more simply, Congress can't give you money unless they give money to everyone.

False. Look up the word "possibility", and then apply that to "It's operation extending by fact, or by possibility, through out the union."

Hamilton was arguing authority to spend money on a federal agency to study agriculture; something that would benefit everyone.

False.

He was arguing for congress havign the authority to perform actions that extended beyond the ennumerated powers.

Essentially he was arguing the exact opposite of what MAdison wrote in Federalist #41.
 
False. Look up the word "possibility", and then apply that to "It's operation extending by fact, or by possibility, through out the union."



False.

He was arguing for congress havign the authority to perform actions that extended beyond the ennumerated powers.

Essentially he was arguing the exact opposite of what MAdison wrote in Federalist #41.

No matter how much you hope and wish that general welfare means whatever you want it to mean, Hamilton wasn't arguing for unchecked federal power.
 
No matter how much you hope and wish that general welfare means whatever you want it to mean, Hamilton wasn't arguing for unchecked federal power.

I'm a conservative so I side with Madison and Jefferson, i.e. a very strict interpretation of the General Welfare clause limiting it to those enumerated powers. (I.e. I support the statements found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, for example)

If you support the Hamiltonian view, you are in favor of liberal "living document" interpretations of the constitution. "See also Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank"


The irony of it is that you seem to think otherwise. In modern parlance, that is called "shooting one's self in the foot".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom