afchief #fundie

afchief #fundie disqus.com

I'll ask you again. Since the law was put there by the legislative branch and the SCOTUS rules it is unconstitutional, WHO removes the "law"?

[Like I said, I don't know. Congress? It doesn't matter who does it, though. When the SC rules (that's RULES, not "offers the opinion") a law is unconstitutional, it is no longer valid, no longer enforceable. At that point, it doesn't matter if it's in the books, or who takes it out, or when they do it.]

Wrong!!! Courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are. If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

President Andrew Jackson, made a statement regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down. Congress can ignore it also. Which means NO law has changed or been made.

Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are—opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says. Congress makes and changes laws. The executive branch signs them into law.

KNOW your Constitution!!!!

30 comments

old comment by Dr. Razark

"Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions areopinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says."

If this is true, then exactly what is the point of the Supreme Court?!? If, as you say, all they do is issue an opinion of laws, and not decide whether the laws are valid in regards to the Constitution, why do we even bother having nine justices?

As for "well, who made it legal?"
No one made sodomy legal. There were laws passed that made it illegal. The Court ruled that those laws were not valid, so the situation defaults back to what it would have been before the laws making it illegal were passed.

There's no reason to pass laws to make things legal. We don't have laws that state breathing or eating are legal. We pass speed limit laws that say "You can't drive above X miles per hour", not "You are allowed to drive slower than X miles per hour". It's pretty simple. If there's not a law making something illegal, then it's by default legal.

old comment by Psalmanazaar

I thought it was bad when people cited Japanese internment camps favorably when discussing discrimination against Muslims. I thought it was bad when Trump suggested California's purges of Mexicans was a valid model for current immigration policy.

But this guy has them beat, with his admiration for Andrew Jackson's decision to violate the constitution while ethnically cleansing the Cherokee.

Here's the response to his argument: judicial decisions are laws just like acts of legislation in Anglo-American systems. Why? Because everybody from the time of the Founders (and hundreds of years before) to the present day has treated them as laws. That is the only reason any law has the force of law. As Jackson demonstrated, the President could theoretically ignore all laws, and rule by force alone, if the military remained loyal. Or we could have anarchy, with little police and mafia fiefdoms springing up everywhere. For all our belief that the system of checks and balances is fool-proof, it is not. The only thing holding it together is consensus about how it works, and fear of the consequences, should it be breached.

old comment by John

The idea that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to nullify laws passed by Congress has been around among a small minority for some time, but has sprung forth in the last few decades by loud-mouthed, far-right historians and legal scholars who don't like SCOTUS's decisions on things like states' rights, abortion and same-sex issues (but let SCOTUS enforce the 2nd Amendment and invalidate a gun control law and you'll hear a different tune). But there is ample evidence from the Constitutional Convention and statements by the founders that that was exactly what was expected. Indeed, if no one but Congress has the authority to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution has no power to limit the actions of Congress and the Bill of Rights becomes worthless. It's ironic that the same right-wingers who holler at SCOTUS for overriding Congress are the loudest complainers when the President invokes "executive privilege" and refuses to enforce a law because he believes it to be unconstitutional.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"We pass speed limit laws that say "You can't drive above X miles per hour", not "You are allowed to drive slower than X miles per hour"."

Did you know that we in the UK can thank American automobilemeister Carroll Shelby (for it is he) - via his testing the AC Cobra on the M1 motorway; at up to over 180 MPH, thus being brought to the attention of the then Transport Minister Barbara Castle* - for the 70 MPH speed limit on our motorways.

While there weren't the amount of cars on our roads at that time as compared to today, and Carroll did said test runs at certain times when traffic density was low to minimise potential risk to himself & other road users, what he did changed one woman's opinion, thus the legislation she brought to the House of Commons (along with the compulsory use of seatbelts in cars later), resulted in the reduction of road deaths; that number lessened with further legislation on other roads. A law - due to an American - that removes the responsibility from fewer British police officers having to tell certain people that their loved one(s) won't be coming home.

...oh, and homosexuality was legalised here in the UK in 1967. S-SM legalised a few years ago after the dropping of opposition to the Bill in Parliament at that time. By bishops & archbishops of the Church of England. In the House of Lords: the UK's equivalent of the SCOTUS.

What two people of the same gender now having the right to do as those of opposite genders in the US. People in Britain having to do - because the law says so, due to the 'opinion' of a woman with political power, after she received reports of what an American was doing on the M1 - which ensures they'll get to their destination safely & in one piece: as the Ministry of Transport/Police/RoSPA road safety slogan says, 'Speed Kills'.

You've got your fucking priorities arse over tit, afchuff.

*- We in Hull have her to thank for giving the go-ahead to the building of the Humber Bridge; up to several years ago, the longest suspension bridge. But still the longest of it's structural type, though

old comment by Alencon

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...

Section. 2.

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, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

In other words, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine what the Constitution means.

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is known as the "supremacy clause" and means that what the Constitutions means, as determined by the federal courts, trumps all state laws and constitutions.

Laws ruled in violation of the Constitution do not have to be removed but they are null and void none the less. If you would like to know what happens when the governor of a state ignores a Supreme Court ruling, Google Orval Faubus.

old comment by

(Emphasis mine.)

re. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

"In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" This derives from Jackson's comments on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict).[1]

The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed, and Georgia complied after several months." - Wikipedia, so of course it's just a lie! /sarcasm

old comment by Mister Spak

@Swede

"When was heterosexual sodomy made a right?"

The resolution of that question was a hoot to watch.

The anti gay sodomy laws usually made straight sodomy illegal also.

The state of Georgia spent millions defending its sodomy laws against a gay lawsuit and won. The fundies were still crowing about their victory when a man was sent to prison for 7 years for straight sodomy. It would be very embarrassing to then say this law was wrong, but it would also be very embarrassing to say he should remain in prison because Jesus. Meanwhile the murderers in prison discovered what he was in for, and took him around to the other murderers to watch them fall down laughing when they learned this guy was doing 7 years for oral sex.

There was a suggestion that the sodomy law be changed so it was only for gays, but that discrimination would be too blatant even for Georgia.

In the end the state had to let him out on parole after a few months, enduring national pointing and laughing in order to spare themselves 7 years of worse pointing and laughing.

A few years later the Georgia supreme court, occupied by the same judges that upheld the sodomy law in a gay sodomy case, ruled in a new straight sodomy case that the same law is unconstitutional(Georgia constitution), and may not be enforced on anyone. Fundie head explosions followed.