ABB

paul_valaru said:
utoh



turns out they only resond when asked by the state. hence LEGAL.
Click to expand...

It's not legal for them to respond at all, whether or not the state asks. If your friend asks you to gun down dozens of people, does that make it legal?
 
paul_valaru said:
then....

the air force and (insert anything that is not in the constitution here) is illegal

cause it is not in the consitution
Click to expand...

Yes it is...read the Preamble.
 
paul_valaru said:
then....

the air force and (insert anything that is not in the constitution here) is illegal

cause it is not in the consitution
Click to expand...

The Air Force is part of the Army... that's why it was originally called the Army Air Corps or something similar.

It's illegal if the Supreme Court decides it is. It's happened to several FEMA-esque things, most notably ones made by FDR and LBJ.

If the Supreme Court has not made a decision on it, it is not necessarily illegal, but not legal either. My personal opinion is that it is illegal, but I am not the Supreme Court.
 
Altron said:
If the Supreme Court has not made a decision on it, it is not necessarily illegal, but not legal either. My personal opinion is that it is illegal, but I am not the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


but you CLAIMED it was illegal
stated a fact even
 
If you read the Constitution, then look at FEMA, it is illegal. However, it still functions, because the Supreme Court has not yet declared it illegal. If the Supreme Court declares it legal, then the Constution has been violated by the nine people who should be upholding it. It's a damn shame, but it's happened before, most recently in Kelo v. New London.
 
Gonz said:
Check Marbury vs Madison. That's not Constitutional either.
Click to expand...

It's going back in my memory a bit, but wasn't that the thing where Madison fired Marbury and the case ended up with the Supreme Court saying that it could review laws to determine if they are constitutional or not?
 
Well, of course judicial review needs to have checks and balances like everything else. Can't Congress then do a two-thirds majority or something to counteract it?

The whole idea is that two branches can get corrupted and the third can still stop them, right?
 
I'm going to bed now. It's been enjoyable flaming you.

Gonz, thanks for the info and the support.

Paul and Les, sorry if I pissed you off. Most Americans sit through like 12 years of history lessons in order to understand the whole state and federal balance of power thing and the whole checks and balances thing. It is my understanding that most countries do not have separate state and federal laws, and I would assume our system seems just as confusing as our distance and temperature measurements.

Deanril, no apologies. Hotlinking a propaganda picture is not rational discussion.
 
Altron said:
It is my understanding that most countries do not have separate state and federal laws, and I would assume our system seems just as confusing as our distance and temperature measurements.
Click to expand...


actually Canada has a federal Gov't Provincial Gov'ts and Municipal Gov'ts. And we have separte state and provincial laws.
 
paul_valaru said:
actually Canada has a federal Gov't Provincial Gov'ts and Municipal Gov'ts. And we have separte state and provincial laws.
Click to expand...

Alright. I'll admit that I don't know anything about Canadian government.

Apology and point still stand, however. It's a complex relationship that really boils down to the balance of power within various government bodies.
 
Leslie said:
You know I'm in Canada and don't give a flying fuck about your ratty old piece of paper that's already been amended a bajillion times cause it was not good enough as it was written, right?
Click to expand...

Then how about shutting up? When we as a nation need you guys for something we'll thaw you out and tell you. Until then, we'll keep defending your peaceful existence worldwide cuz we're like that.

Wait. My bad. Know it all smug self righteous liberals don't know HOW to shut up. Please forgive.
 
There's your chance you've been waiting for by the way. Waiting a long time for in fact. Got yer buddy flamio back in an alias to help ya, so you better take advantage of it. Enjoy.
 
Altron said:
The Constitution does not say that it's legal. Therefore, it is not legal. There does not need to be a specific clause prohibiting it. Because there is not a specific clause allowing it, it is prohibited.
Click to expand...

So that's how it works over there?

I thought it was smarter to have a law system along the lines of:
if it isn't forbidden, then it is allowed. Of course I might be wrong.
 
Luis G said:
So that's how it works over there?

I thought it was smarter to have a law system along the lines of:
if it isn't forbidden, then it is allowed. Of course I might be wrong.
Click to expand...
No you're not. That's the way it's supposed to be here although it rarely works out that way.

What's scary is that the other is probably what they teach kids in school these days.
 
Luis G said:
So that's how it works over there?

I thought it was smarter to have a law system along the lines of:
if it isn't forbidden, then it is allowed. Of course I might be wrong.
Click to expand...

The Constitution isn't a law saying what people can and can not do, it says what the government can or can not do. It's a direct result of the 1750s-1770s during which Britain opressed the Colonies without allowing the Colonies to have any say in the government. It's the law that prevents the US from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship.

Without the Constitution, the government could do whatever they damn well please. They could say 'You know, voting is so 20th century, let's make it so corporate lobbyists decide who is President'. Or they could decide 'Hey, let's start censoring websites and newspapers, because we don't want Americans to think badly about us.', aka Sedition Acts, which were removed by.... the Supreme Court!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top