“It” being a Constitutional Amendment that Lincoln referenced.
What the Court has the power to do is interpret the Constitution. If the Court finds that a law violates the Constitution, as it did here, the Court has the power to invalidate the law, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
There is a flag burning law still on the books long after it was declared unconstitutional by the USSC. Repigs like to cite it, because they are stupid.
1 Like
When I run into a no-nothing clown like this I ask him what he knows about Marbury vs. Madison. They never answer. It’s incredible that this guy was ever elected to any office anywhere.
You hate those who are more accomplished, smarter, more educated and richer than you. Because you are a repig.
You are too stupid to understand what you just did there.
That frothymix thing was brilliant. You can tell because it has seemed to stand the test of time so far. I was going to say “it stuck”, but I just couldn’t.
This was painful to listen to. The worst of twisted logic from Santorum mixed with a lot of complete crap he presents as fact.
Hannity is a college drop out who’s inspiration to get politically active was a fictional character from a sit com. Maddow is a Rhodes scholar with a PhD in the topics she discusses. You may want to take substance into account when you start equating people as juvenile or blockheads. You know, assuming you don’t want anyone with a brain in their heads to immediately identify you as similarly juvenile and blockheaded to what you’re projecting…
1 Like
I really wish she would have challenged him on his interpretation of “consensual”. Seriously and plainly, if you think bestiality and pedophilia fall under the heading of “consensual activity”, you do not understand what consent is.
Huge, regularly reoccurring, problem for conservatives. They too often do not understand the concept of consent, and seem to only recognize and respect agency among white cis males.
Also, the whole fundamental failure on basic civics is just fantastic for a serious political candidate…
3 Likes
Maddow a Rhodes scholar…Obama a Peace Nobel Price winner…
Very stale idea. Republican state legislatures have been doing it for decades.
Right, cause you know, straw man…
The Supreme Court has the right to see that the states use the powers they have fairly. Once the states define marriage they are not allowed to define it differently for different groups of people – blacks and whites for one example and gays and straights for another. It was not an assumption by the court that it had the power to define or regulate marriage – it was a continuation of the court’s power to see that the states act fairly.
That said, just because a right is not explicitly noted in the Constitution does not bar the Supreme Court from protecting it:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Thus, the Supreme Court cannot deny a right to the people simply because it is not enumerated in the Constitution.
You sound like a slave holder fantasizing that the nation really did support slavery.
The nation has tried same sex marriage and finds all it does is make those individuals happy and bothers no one else.
Try your next problem.
Not just hyperbole either JC. Doctorate in Poli/Sci at Oxford and Rhodes Scholar to boot.
Just like President bill Clinton she is scary smart.
If you want to say you dislike her style or can’t stand the sound of a woman’s voice or whatever, you can at least argue on the basis of there being no accounting for taste. If you want to start questioning people’s earned credentials, you are going to have to start by presenting your own. “Internet comment section troll”… How do you abbreviate that at the end of your name?
2 Likes
Yes, she’s always polite and generous, but at the same time, she doesn’t let her interviewees get away with pure BS. And so when they try it, she calls them on it, and if they simply refuse to acknowledge reality and continue to spout the same BS, she continues to insist that they acknowledge the reality of the situation, and that’s when the interviews get stuck like an LP with a scratch in it.
But as uncomfortable as that can be to watch, I much prefer it to the way most other TV journos handle it by just moving on to the next question, because that plays into the whole he said/she said journalism that leaves the audience confused about the actual truth of things.
Oh, I’m sure he understands perfectly well, it’s just that it’s in his political interest to pretend that he doesn’t.
I believe Joe Paulson was referring to the Territorial Abolition Act of 1862:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
But this was not Lincoln being deliberately revolutionary; rather, he was acting as he had promised in the response to Dred Scott that you quoted: doing what he could to have what he felt to be an erroneous decision reversed. He had filled three Supreme Court vacancies in 1862 (he would later fill two more), and that was enough to consider the 1862 law safe from a potential challenge. And in 1865, the passage of the 13th Amendment took the issue off the table permanently.