• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Stop Calling Things Unconstitutional


 

1. You can't assume if one thing isn't in the Constitution, then it is, and then decide that the other thing that isn't in the Constitution, isn't in there just because you like one thing and don't like the other. If you assume that the one is in the Constitution, logic dictates that the other must also be in the constitution. Regardless of whether you like it or not. Someone on here basically said that innocence until proven guilty isn't technically in the constitution and you are saying it is.

2. Try refreshing the page. It's weird though.
 

1. Exactly so your statement is wrong. Showing me quotes from selected founding fathers doesn't count as evidence or proof that jury nullification works in supreme court cases. The Supreme Court has not recently touched the subject, therefore it is a non-issue.
 


1) The right to due process is in the Constitution, inclusive of the guarantee of the trial by jury under certain terms. The same is not true for affording the Supreme Court the exclusive authority and final word to establish constitutionality, and that was not even indicated by Marbury v Madison. "Review" does not involve any indication of being a final or singular authority.


2) "Likes" suddenly appeared on page 8, but not on the pages previous to that. I went back and looked after it appeared.
 
Last edited:

1. You do realize that most amendments were decided by the Supreme Court as well don't you? I guess we should just get rid of all of them? To overhaul the entire US decision making system which is currently in place today would take years and frankly we are having trouble getting regular laws passed or even read...Do you really trust crazies or the people in power today to do what you want?

2. I don't know what's going on then, mine don't work after a post but do after a refresh. EDIT: I posted this issue in the feedback section.
 
Last edited:

A few amendments may have had their constitutionality challenged, such as the 16th Amendment (which should have had its constitutionality entirely rejected, but that is for another argument), or perhaps the 17th Amendment, and certainly the 18th Amendment, all of which should have been ruled unconstitutional <gee, we're establishing a trend here, but its nothing to do with this being the progressive era>

However saying that "most" amendments were considered by the Court certainly is not true. Certainly none of those Amendments should have even had to be challenged, because the Constitution is only legitimately structured to limit and define government, not grant it authority to dictate to individuals.

Beyond that, the ruling of the Court on Amendments, does not in any way serve to validate the court as the final word on the Constitution, which would be nothing but circular, self-validating 'logic', and nothing more. And again there exist other legitimate means to challenge Constitutionality, and the Court itself, which are not detailed in the Constitution..


We don't have near enough necessary trouble in getting regular laws passed, and there is no real need for more laws, but rather lessening of laws. And no, i don't trust crazies to do what I want, nor do I want them to do what I want, but rather demand that they do what they must under the Constitution.

Among those demands is my certainty that the federal government does not own my person, and has no legitimate authority to dictate that I enter into an involuntary contract, to pay things I don't want to pay, while the government dictates the terms in an area in which it has no legitimate authority.
 

1. Not in any sort of official way besides for of course and quite successfully, the 18th amendment. As mentioned before, a person can get the Supreme Court to listen to their case, but once they rule in favor of amendments and not the person's interpretation of said amendment then they are finished! I'm sorry, but that's how actual law works!

2. For the 16th amendment this has already been decided and ruled upon. For reference I suggest you read the following cases. Stanton VS Baltic Mining and Brushaber VS Union Pacific. Both of these cases deals with the constitutionality of the 16th amendment.

Stanton VS Baltic Mining :
Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the law denied "to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property without due process of law." The Supreme Court rejected that argument.

Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument and upheld the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Revenue Act.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brushaber VS Union Pacific:
In Brushaber the Court noted that even before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, the Congress had authority to tax income. If a particular income tax was a direct tax or was treated as a direct tax in the constitutional sense, that tax could be imposed (after Pollock but before the passage of the Amendment) only by apportionment among the states, according to their census populations.

The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population. The Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, is constitutional.
The Revenue Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.
The Revenue Act does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.
In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. 17th Amendment:
Of course, not everyone is in favor of the 17th amendment. States complain that their power to influence the federal government was taken away by the federal government. They could no longer have their interests represented in the legislature, as the Senators became disconnected with their state’s government, an arrangement that many states did not like. The popularity of the 17th amendment with the people was important though and that helped the 17th amendment survive all the way to today. All states eventually adopted the current US election system, and it has been held in place to this day.

17th Amendment

BTW, there is no Supreme Court case connected with the election of Senators, because everyone likes the idea, so each state adopted it with little to no criticism! While there are always loudmouth critics like yourself, complaining about it and doing something about it is entirely different.

4. The 18th Amendment:
The 21st Amendment repeals the 18th amendment through the proper legal channels. Section 2 has been the source of every Supreme Court ruling directly addressing Twenty-first Amendment issues.
Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5. No all of them may have had critics, but only one has been officially repealed.

6. For someone who claims to have a history with the Constitution, you sure don't seem to know a lot about how it came into existence.
 
Last edited:

Federalist No. 78 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
ModerateGOP said:
Sure but that doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional. It is right now, until the Supreme Court either reverses the decision or the President Vetos it. Which in itself is an entirely questionable abuse of power.
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention. I didn't say anything about Rowe vs. Wade other than that it is still an issue and people have differing opinions. By the way, the President can't veto supreme court decisions. That would be unconstitutional.
 
sangha said:
It's 100% true.
Click to expand...

Not 100% true at all. Agree that the SCOTUS has successfully assumed the power of judicial review and taken unto itself the power to change the constitution by interpretation. So in that venue, yes, once the SCOTUS rules something constitutional/unconstitutional - it is. But that does not apply to any other court, including the states supreme courts or the any of the lower federal courts.
 

There is no reasonable doubt that the Framers intended that the judiciary have the power of judicial review.
 
sangha said:
There is no reasonable doubt that the Framers intended that the judiciary have the power of judicial review.
Click to expand...

Indeed there is. The Jeffersonian side of the framer equation disagrees with you. In fact, the only reason their assumption of the power stood is that they invoked the power of precedence. Jefferson thought he managed to foil them in the effort, but they just waited until he was dead and asserted precedence thereafter. Marbury never got his seat even though the court ordered it.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Simple Fact. If the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional, then it is legal law!
Click to expand...
Like when SCOTUS said the right to vote did not apply to women, right?
 

wrong

At the tome of the writing of the constitution, there were no "Jeffersonians". They only argued against judicial review *after* it had been written and in force for years.
 
That the supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says.

The federal government has become a tyranny which acts without constitutional authority.

This came about because we were lured away from The Founding Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and were seduced into believing government should provide for our needs and protect us from the challenges of Life.

Progressives of the early 1900s 9 transformed the federal government into the Frankensteinian monster it is today. They imposed the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, and benefits some people [e.g., welfare parasites, labor unions & obama donors] at the expense of others.

The Progressives claimed the power to determine what is in the “public interest” and have the federal government implement their notions of what advances the “public interest”.

Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; but would follow the “will of the people” as expressed by their representatives in the federal government. In other words, the Progressives gave the federal government a blank check to fill out anyway they want. People in the federal government now claim power to do whatever they want to us.

The federal government imposed by the Progressives is evil:

♦ In order to provide benefits to some; the federal government violates the God-given property rights of others. The federal government robs Peter to pay Paul.

♦ In order to protect us from the challenges of life (including made up problems such as “global warming” and “lack of medical insurance”), the federal government violates everyone’s God-given rights to Liberty.

And thus today, the federal government:

♦ Usurps powers not delegated to it in the Constitution. Most of what it does is unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers delegated in our Constitution.

♦ Has become an instrument of oppression, injustice, and immorality.

♦ Has taken away most of our God given rights, and is now conniving to take away our God given right to self-defense.

Now you know how the federal government was transformed from being the securer of our God given rights to a tyranny which oppresses some of the people for the benefit of others; and takes everyone’s Liberty away – except for those in the ruling class.

So! What do We do? What can We do?

The nullification deniers insist We must obey whatever Congress and the President dictate unless five (5) judges on the supreme Court say We don’t have to. They say the supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not.

But think: Who created the federal government?

We did! It is our “creature”. Is the “creature” to dictate to the “creator”?

The nullification deniers say, “Yes!” They say that:

♦ Every law made by Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] is “supreme”; and

♦ Every executive order issued by the President [the Executive Branch of the federal government] is binding; and

♦ The States and The People must obey, unless and until five (5) judges on the supreme Court [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] say the law or executive order is unconstitutional.

In other words, only the federal government may question the federal government!

Under their vision, the federal government WE created with the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers WE delegated to it; and the opinion of five (5) judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Jarrett Stepman regurgitates the statist lie that “the ultimate decision maker in terms of America’s political system is the Supreme Court.”

Randy Barnett, law professor, chants the statist refrain, “…What has the Supreme Court said and meant? and … Are there now five justices to sustain the claim?”.

Barnett selects two paragraphs from Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), (which address the alien & sedition acts), and claims they show Madison “expressly denies, or at minimum equivocates about whether, there is a literal power of nullification in states”.

Well, We saw above that States couldn’t nullify the alien & sedition acts because they purported to grant dictatorial powers to the President; and did not require The States or The People to do – or not do – something.

And the two paragraphs Barnett claims are so “telling” as to The States’ lack of “literal power” to nullify anything, and as to the ultimate authority of the Judicial Branch, appear under Madison’s discussion of the last two Resolutions where Virginia had asked other States to join the protest. Madison merely says the citizens and legislature of Virginia have the right to communicate with other States; and in so doing, they are not exercising a judicial function.

Now! Note Well: Madison actually says, in the same Report Barnett cites, that it is “a plain principle, founded in common sense” that The States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, Madison says:

“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:

“…If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort”.

Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:

“…the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as

“…to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; 10 and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.”
 
sangha said:
wrong

At the tome of the writing of the constitution, there were no "Jeffersonians". They only argued against judicial review *after* it had been written and in force for years.
Click to expand...

Nope, Madison v Marbury was the first time the court assumed the power. And the Jeffersonians were framers. In fact chief among them was the author of the constitution - Madison. Back to civics class for you.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, Madison v Marbury was the first time the court assumed the power. And the Jeffersonians were framers. In fact chief among them was the author of the constitution - Madison. Back to civics class for you.
Click to expand...

Wrong again

MvM was the first time they *applied* judicial review to a constitutional issue.

Before then, the courts had engaged in several examples of judicial review without anyone complaining about it (aside from those who lost the case).
 
sangha said:
Wrong again

MvM was the first time they *applied* judicial review to a constitutional issue.

Before then, the courts had engaged in several examples of judicial review without anyone complaining about it (aside from those who lost the case).
Click to expand...

Show your stuff then. I notice you're using your usual tactic. Make a spray of false claims and then abandon them as they are proven false except for one that you can twist some and make true by distorting your original claims.
 
clownboy said:
Show your stuff then. I notice you're using your usual tactic. Make a spray of false claims and then abandon them as they are proven false except for one that you can twist some and make true by distorting your original claims.
Click to expand...

Which statement of mine are you questioning?

However, I will note that at another time, even you agreed that SCOTUS had the power of judicial review

 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Like when SCOTUS said the right to vote did not apply to women, right?
Click to expand...

I already answered this question numerous time in various different scenarios. The law at the time matters here. Slavery was right then it wasn't. Women not voting was law, then it wasn't. Stop being so emotional about this. Your acting like a liberal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…