New anti-gun legislation

[Philonius]

This is my favorite bit of Rob's constitutional scholarship by far:

"We also have a false religion problem in this country, we need to make sure everyone religious is doing it in a state sanctioned way..."

 

[Zak]

"The purpose of the judicial branch is to determine if laws passed in the legislature are Constitutional. That is their one and only function."

I think the judiciary's function is a bit broader than that. Not all court challenges raise constitutional claims and judges are often called upon to apply the law to the facts render a decision, without examining whether the law itself is constitutional.

And as to constitutional challenges, it can be difficult to determine whether a law is constitutional until you can examine how it is applied.

Further, the federal judiciary not only reviews acts of the legislature, but also acts of the executive. And, it resolves conflicts between laws even where the constitutionality of neither law is at issue.

Of course, the Constitution (along with our treaties) is the supreme law of the land. So everything the federal judiciary does is grounded in the Constitution. But federal courts make a rule of not addressing constitutional issues if the case can be resolved on other grounds.

Interestingly (at least to me), the judiciary's power to review the acts of the other two branches is not stated in the Constitution. It is implied, and was established (by the judiciary, of course) in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, well after the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

 

[Zak]

I want to echo Swimmy's comment above. While I don't agree with Rob on some things, I greatly respect how he sticks to his arguments calmly and without personal attacks.

 

[jasmillo]

.

The purpose of the judicial branch is to determine if laws passed in the legislature are Constitutional. That is their one and only function.


Quite frankly the big problem is that people ( both right and left) go to DC with agendas.
In my opinion all agendas other than upholding the constitution violate a lawmakers oath of office and that person cannot be sworn in as a lawmaker.

The things we want them to do are the problem.. when what congress should be doing is pretty much nothing... we don't need any more laws or regulations. All we need is for government to let the people be the people and stay out of our way.....

Go........... balance the budget or something


Ohh. And we can get an understanding of what the the founding fathers meant by reading other things that they have written. They intended all law makers to perpetually be Constitutional originality in terms of the bill of rights

That is not their only function. They are also responsible for interpreting and validating the application of existing laws as well.

You can have the opinion that we don’t need anymore laws or regulations but it’s just an opinion, which is impractical for more reasons than can be listed here. It’s also not in line with how the founding fathers designed our government. The legislative branch exists for a reason. How they designed our government is the biggest clue we have as to their intent.

I think we have hijacked this thread enough at this point. Two people arguing constitutional law on a fly fishing forum that have absolutely no credentials to be doing so. Must be wintertime.

 

[Roper]

Y’all are a half step from me shutting this one down, no personal attacks...

Hell, on second thought @b_illymac, shut ‘er down, please.

 

[bhudda]

I believe if you started the thread, you can cancel it also...

 

[Roper]

I believe if you started the thread, you can cancel it also...

I don’t see how, Jeff...but thanks.

 

[BaldBob]

That statement is derived by reading the bill of rights and how it explicitly describes rights that the government cannot touch without due process.

Read the last three words of your sentence. Due process for making or changing amendments is spelled out in the Constitution and does not exclude the Bill of Rights

 

[Rob Allen]

Read the last three words of your sentence. Due process for making or changing amendments is spelled out in the Constitution and does not exclude the Bill of Rights

No due process of law is taking away an individuals rights for just cause. Not taking away everyone's rights for no reason at all.

I completely disagree the bill of rights is untouchable.. if it it touched i expect every member of this forum to participate in an insurrection it would be the right and moral thing to do.

I'm not Muslim, but if our congress passed laws taking away the rights of Muslims to worship their God... I would be there to remove the lawmakers and every good person would be.

 

[Rob Allen]

That is not their only function. They are also responsible for interpreting and validating the application of existing laws as well.

You can have the opinion that we don’t need anymore laws or regulations but it’s just an opinion, which is impractical for more reasons than can be listed here. It’s also not in line with how the founding fathers designed our government. The legislative branch exists for a reason. How they designed our government is the biggest clue we have as to their intent.

I think we have hijacked this thread enough at this point. Two people arguing constitutional law on a fly fishing forum that have absolutely no credentials to be doing so. Must be wintertime.

I agree with most of what you say.. however we are American citizens that alone gives us credentials to be discussing the constitution.
I think you're right we've both made our points.
Thank you for a thoughtful respectful discussion!

 

[quilbilly]

No due process of law is taking away an individuals rights for just cause. Not taking away everyone's rights for no reason at all.

I completely disagree the bill of rights is untouchable.. if it it touched i expect every member of this forum to participate in an insurrection it would be the right and moral thing to do.

I'm not Muslim, but if our congress passed laws taking away the rights of Muslims to worship their God... I would be there to remove the lawmakers and every good person would be.

Always with the threats of insurrection...always with the 'the good and moral person would'... never realizing that outside of your own front door and a voting booth your opinion simply doesn't amount to much.
Somehow I doubt your actually capable of insurrection, as those who talk the most typically do the least.
Lol

 

[bhudda]

I don’t see how, Jeff...but thanks.

Hit the three dots next to “report” in bottom left corner... should have option to edit or delete. Maybe give a try...or we wait

 

[cervelors]

For some strange reason I keep hearing James McMurtry and “Choctaw Bingo“ playing in the background as I read these....maybe just a CDN perspective.

 

[jasmillo]

Or people could just watch their tone. I think @Roper op is appropriate for this sub forum and worthy of discussion.

Rob and I have gone back and forth on a number of issues over the years. I think we agree on some things but probably disagree on more. In the end, who cares. I am married to a women I do not agree with on everything. He never makes it personal though. He rarely cedes a point which frustrates people to the point of personal attacks but that’s on you, not him. We are all adults here.....or at least should be based on forum rules.

 

[Swimmy]

I am married to a women I do not agree with on everything.

Amen homie