Snowdon is a dummy

Quote:

YOU do not get to decide what is a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, Bill. That is done by the courts.

Sorry the courts get to decide what parts of the constitution they will enforce or not enforce however it is not a reasonable interpretation under the constitution to allow a movie director to be sentence to ten years in prison for creating a movie showing the Brits in a bad light or to sentence people to twenty years in prison for peacefully speaking out against a war!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

And if the legislative branch disagrees with them, they can pass legislation to correct what the court has decided.

Wake the hell up, Bill.

YOU do not get to make those decisions...no matter how delusional you get.

An congress can override the SC when it rule that a law in unconstitutional!!!!!

Do you have a clue how our system of government work at all?????????????

Of course President Jackson once told the SC to go screw itself as far as them finding against the moving the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi

You wrote,

Quote:

"provide for the common defense"

, but ignore all the other straight-forward amendments to the Constitution.

It's called "probable cause." There is no probable cause to collect mass data of all Americans as if we are all terrorists.

Also, "provide for the common defense" is a red herring which can be interpreted as "our government can do anything it wishes including ignoring all the other amendments to the Constitution."

SC judges are appointed by the president who is of course elected by the people in a fair election. People in congress are elected by the people, the whole government is elected by the people in as fair a democracy as we can make it. It is not perfect. If the people want those laws to change then they should vote for people who will make the changes they want and appoint the judges they want.

In the end, this will end up in the SC, who knows how it will turn out. I don't have a clue at this point. I am ok however it turns out.

I don't make the laws, but I can determine what it says as it stands today.

Challenge that; not some foolish straw man about "you don't determine the laws." I never said I did!

You can state your opinion of what they say...but that is of no consequences except for you, ci.

This Article addresses two central criticisms of the United States Supreme Court's treatment of the issues raised by the disputed Florida election and ultimately resolved in Bush v. Gore: that the Court violated principles of democratic process and dramatically overstepped the boundaries ofjudicial review. As will become apparent, the Article gives only modest attention to the text of the many opinions by the Florida and United States Supreme Courts in the Bush v. Gore drama. It will be an interesting question in the years ahead whether the formal legal grounds set forth as the basis of the United States Supreme Court's per curiam decision or of any of the concurrences or dissents will survive as plausible foundations for election jurisprudence. This Article ignores that question and, instead, attempts to analyze the Court's various judgments during the period of the dispute in a broader sense. Just as the purely legal grounds of the United States Supreme Court's opinions in cases such as Dred Scott or Brown v. Board of Education are of less interest than the substantive judgments made by the Court in its institutional role under the Constitution, so I believe the purely legal grounds of Bush v. Gore deserve less attention now.
The most serious criticisms of the way that the United States Supreme Court resolved the Florida election are not that the majority opinion contains logical failures or ignores conflicting precedent, however accurate such complaints might be. The most serious criticisms are that the United States Supreme Court fundamentally breached its Constitutional role by disregarding basic principles of the process of democratic accountability and by committing what some commentators, including my colleague Bruce Ackerman, have called "a Constitutional coup."

Frank, You really are stupid! Find any difference between what I said vs what I've posted from the Constitution and its amendments.

I can't answer for anyone else who tries to define what it says. I'm only responsible for WHAT I SAY. If what I said is in error, please point them out for me?

You're dumber than a door knot; at least a door knob has practical use.

You wrote,

Quote:

You can state your opinion of what they say...but that is of no consequences except for you, ci.

Not really; only if what I say deviates from the laws at it is written today.

What the SC does isn't always consistent with the Constitution.

George L Priest of Yale Law School

Quote:

This Article addresses two central criticisms of the United States Supreme Court's treatment of the issues raised by the disputed Florida election and ultimately resolved in Bush v. Gore: that the Court violated principles of democratic process and dramatically overstepped the boundaries ofjudicial review. As will become apparent, the Article gives only modest attention to the text of the many opinions by the Florida and United States Supreme Courts in the Bush v. Gore drama. It will be an interesting question in the years ahead whether the formal legal grounds set forth as the basis of the United States Supreme Court's per curiam decision or of any of the concurrences or dissents will survive as plausible foundations for election jurisprudence. This Article ignores that question and, instead, attempts to analyze the Court's various judgments during the period of the dispute in a broader sense. Just as the purely legal grounds of the United States Supreme Court's opinions in cases such as Dred Scott or Brown v. Board of Education are of less interest than the substantive judgments made by the Court in its institutional role under the Constitution, so I believe the purely legal grounds of Bush v. Gore deserve less attention now.
The most serious criticisms of the way that the United States Supreme Court resolved the Florida election are not that the majority opinion contains logical failures or ignores conflicting precedent, however accurate such complaints might be. The most serious criticisms are that the United States Supreme Court fundamentally breached its Constitutional role by disregarding basic principles of the process of democratic accountability and by committing what some commentators, including my colleague Bruce Ackerman, have called "a Constitutional coup."

In the US, any citizen is free to express their displeasure at the decisions our government makes. That includes the Supreme Court.

Have a bit of cheese with that whine! Have a bit of cheese with that whine!

Quote:

Have a bit of cheese with that whine! Have a bit of cheese with that whine!

Having your own taxes payer funds being used by your own government to spy on you is more the enough reason to whine

No, I am not stupid,

No, I am not dumb,

What a disgruntled, unhappy person you are.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

Frank, You really are stupid! Find any difference between what I said vs what I've posted from the Constitution and its amendments.

Frank,

Quote:

No, I am not stupid, but I realize that in order to make your life bearable, you are required to call people stupid.

Find any difference between what I said vs what I've posted from the Constitution and its amendments.