afchief #wingnut

afchief #wingnut christiannews.net

TheKingOfRhye
There doesn't HAVE to be a mention of marriage in the Constitution. Again, that's what the 9th Amendment is for.

afchief
Then why did the states have marriage mentioned in their Constitutions? Why was sodomy against the law in 1986. What changed? Judges!!!!!!

It's called Judiciary Tyranny!!!

TheKingOfRhye
I'm not saying the opinions of courts don't change. I'm just saying their opinion DO carry weight, which is what you don't seem to realize.

afchief
There opinions can effect change in the form of policy. The SCOTUS cannot strike down laws.

Michael C
The Court has been striking down laws for over two hundred years.

Are you just hearing about it now?

afchief
Show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS can strike down laws?

And I will show you where only the Legislative branch can do so!!!!

TheKingOfRhye
They can declare laws unconstitutional. You mentioned how it took a long time for schools to desegregate after Brown vs Board of Education.....as if that was a GOOD thing?

afchief
That's because it took the legislative branch (congress) to change the law.

If the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional it is STILL up to the legislative branch to remove or change the law. Until then, it is STILL law.

Ambulance Chaser
When did Congress pass a law that says school segregation is illegal?

afchief
Go back and do you own research!

32 comments

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Courts are not policy think tanks. What afchief is saying is if, as the Constitution says, the "judicial power" of the United States is invested in the Supreme Court and other courts as Congress shall determine (Article 3), then if the what the courts have to say is of no import, the United States has no judicial power. Article 3 states that "judicial power" extends to all cases which must be held by courts with juries, excepting impeachment trials. The Supreme Court has - with the exception of trials involving "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls" - the "appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact" on such rules as Congress makes. That means that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, what the Supreme Court says are the facts are the facts and what the Supreme Court says is the law is the law. And Congress has no powers here other than to determine the "Exceptions" and "Regulations" to be considered by the court.

According to afchief's understanding, the United States has no judicial power. Therefore, the Attorney General must be dismissed, all cases involving the federal government - whether in or outside the United States - should be abandoned, and the federal prisons should be emptied and shut down.

As for what state constitutions say, that is a matter for the states. They can, if they choose, declare every Monday a holiday, or "Yes, We Have No Bananas" as the State Song to be sung at all solemn gatherings; the only condition is that the state constitution complies with the constitution of the United States.

old comment by Trivia Jockey

I've seen this argument before, only more articulately stated. What afchief and his ilk are arguing is that the ability to declare laws unconstitutional isn't specifically set forth in the Constitution. Now the rest of the civilized world recognizes that this power was established in the Marbury v. Madison case and has been an unquestioned, established principal of federal judicial review ever since, but some people just won't let go.

I once had a twitter argument with one of these guys who argued that federal judicial review was illegal because it "was a power the SCOTUS granted to itself" and we are all just sheep for accepting it (or something).

old comment by Anon-e-moose

afchuff
"Go back and do you own research!"

'Tis a good thing I'd removed the power cell out of, and moved it well away from the computer, my Irony Meter, and in more ways than one.

At least my top-of-the-line Irony Meter made by Yaesu was out of the blast radius of the budget one made by Tesco's; also to ensure this one didn't go the same way, as that one is expensive, hard to find and a bitch to replace.

afchuff's hypocrisy is so lethally toxic, any decent meter wouldn't survive the Chernobyl 'Elephant's Foot'-levels of Irony he chucks out.

Neutrinos can pass through light years-thicknesses of Lead as easily as Photons through a vacuum. Afchuff's head is the only thing that can block Neutrinos.