Grayson vs. CEO of Citi bank

You are still confusing truth with law

The truth may never be settled, and there is as many opinions of reality as there are people to ask.

The law is all about making judgments. It is a difference in kind. Important questions about constitutionality of laws are settled. Our opinions of “the truth”, has no bearing on constitutional law. The justices are appointed (not elected), and they will only leave when they feel like it. It says in the constitution that their salary can never be reduced. The constitution says that they decide what is unconstitutional, no one else. Do not object to this on constitutional grounds.
It’s fine to be a rebel and speak your mind, just don’t say that laws that are almost a century old are unconstitutional. Precedent my friend, in law, they talk about precedent, not their opinions about the truth.

Slavery was never constitutional. How many of the Bill of Rights were denied to the people that were kept as property? At a quick glance it’s looking like ammendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 at least. Any fool (non-lawyer) can see that.

So I guess that means there’s a difference between unconstitutional and uncontested. In other words, it was legal when it was legal, but it was never constitutional while the Constitution was in force.

But sometimes those judgments are in err, and the court reverses it’s position. Many important questions are only settled temporarily, and the court later reverses it’s decision. Thus, one of those judgments must be wrong, and thus not constitutional…and this is exactly what the court says.

Right. The opinions of the justices have bearing on constitutional law. A difference of degree not, of kind; they’re both opinions.

I’m well versed on the how the SC functions, thanks. I’m not objecting to how the court functions. I don’t disagree that the SC is the what makes decisions about constitutionality…it’s just that sometimes they get it wrong. All I’m trying to point out is that constitutionality is a truth ideal that is higher than the opinions of you, me, or the nine SC justices.

And what is precedent? The opinions of former justices. It’s all opinion, just from various sources. Indeed, a justice who voted in the minority often hands down a dissenting opinion. If not an opinion on the ‘truth’ of whether a particular law/amendment fits with the ideals/text of the constitution, what are they opinions of?

I don’t see how you could say that. Of course slavery was constitutional. Slaves were not considered voting citizens, nor were woman, for the first 100 ish years of the republic. All clearly spelled out in the original constitution. A slave counted as 3/5 of a person for census , white woman as one person, but who could not vote or run for office, nor serve on a jury. All settled constitutional law in the early 1800’s.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia You should at least skim this John.

This is where it is helpful to have a firm grasp of the difference between moral truth, and law. Like sugar and salt, they may look alike to you, but a cook who confuses them ends up with half baked bread. A historian, who confuses his own ideals of moral truth, with constitutional law, will form half baked ideas.

There is no contradiction between the fact that blacks had no rights and woman had less than men, constitutionally, in the pre civil war era, and the fact that blacks and woman have equal rights today. Congress and the states can change the constitution, and have several times to considerable effect.

Right you are. Yuck. On just reading the Bill of Rights, there is the mistaken assumption that people from Africa were people. But constitutionally, they weren’t.

Thanks John Foss

On the day of his death he wrote “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.” - Shortly before Brown was hung in 1859.

John Brown perfectly understood that black people were people in the 1850’s. As a scientist, or as a moralist, I would agree with him. Both John Brown and I would agree that his plan to lead a slave revolt was unconstitutional. He used only moral logic. Worth a read, John Brown’s life moved the country. Even if he was an unconstitutional dumb ass of a failure at anything that had to do with law or money. And he was hanged for it.

Many historians credit John Brown’s exploits (trying to create an armed slave rebellion) as having lead directly to the creation of Southern militias, which, once they got cocky, attacked Fort Sumpter. The militias were formed out of fears that northern abolitionists, such as Brown, would arm slaves with guns and take over. Which was exactly John Brown’s plan.

I half-composed, but never finished a response that articulated this point. But this an historical point: the slaves were not considered people. What I mean to say is that they were people all along, but that this status was denied to them. I want to use the current concept of person, anachronistically applied to the constitution. If we start saying that “well it was constitutional then, but not it isn’t because we redefined personhood,” I think this implies a brand of relativism that is dangerous. Regardless of whether there is objective or relative moral truth, we must act as if there is the former. And thus, we must speak of things being constitutional or unconstitutional in modern concepts, even if a previous ruling, utilizing an old concept, was consistent with the constitution.

Regarding the issue that promted this digression, I think Gilby, or anyone, is justified in claiming something as (un)constitutional. It is a sort of oblique way of saying “I understand certain important concepts in a certain way that is incompatible with the constitution. I think you should too.”

Similarly, an abolitionist in the 1800s might say “slavery is unconstitutional” because he wants slaves to become included in the concept of person. If you’re trying to change the minds of your countryment about a very entrenched idea, you don’t attack it head on; you explain why it conflicts with ideas they DO accept.

…and I still don’t understand how not respecting a SC decision is tantamount to treason. Or how patriotism is conditional on agreeing with SC decisions.

The abolitionists never said slavery was unconstitutional

John Brown may have been been many dumb things. However, ignorant of the law he was not. John Brown was pissed because he knew slavery was constitutional.
After the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision, Brown knew the constitution was an ass as far as he cared. Slavery was constitutional, that’s what pissed him off, and he was not known for parsing words or deeds.

Easily the most important abolitionist of all time, check out this vid about John Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax7KjLUOt8w

Oh really? Here are the busts, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, since the Fed:
1918–1919, 1920–1921, 1923–1924, 1926–1927, 1929–1933, 1937–1938, 1945, 1948–1949, 1953–1954, 1957–1958, 1960–1961, 1969–1970, 1973–1975, 1980, 1981–1982, 1990–1991, 2001, and 2007-2009.

Not exactly a good track record.

Here is a 1893 United States Note:

Credit expansion causes an unsustainable boom, which then leads to a bust as the market corrects itself. Every single depression, panic, recession, or whatever the politically correct term of the day is for the bust, has this in common.

It’s clear you haven’t read the constitution. Nowhere does it say the supreme court is the final arbiter. The constitution only spells out what controversies and cases the supreme court, and its inferior courts, have jurisdiction to hear.

Furthermore, the supreme court has never heard a case about the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve that I am aware of.

If you think the constitution allows the Federal Reserve to have been chartered by the United States, then please quote the part of the constitution that allows it. Please quote the parts of the constitution that even give the United States the powers that the Federal Reserve exercises.

Here’s some more “treason” for you:

  • Most of what the United States does is unconstitutional.
  • The 17th amendment is unconstitutional (the Constitution is a contract between the several states that charters the organization, United States. The senate is the body that represents the states where each senator answers to their state legislature. The 17th amendment removed the states from having representation).
  • The 16th amendment, while constitutional, is being applied in an unconstitutional and unlawful manor. The supreme court has not heard a case dealing with this misapplication.
  • The most important word in the 1st amendment is "the". This amendment doesn't give me the right to claim something is unconstitutional, the use of the word "the" shows it is a right I already had. It's not treason.

There may have been a small period between the civil war and the early 1900s where there was almost no slavery, but slavery is alive and well today. If someone else has first claim to the fruits of your labor, you are a slave.

I’ll object to it on constitutional grounds. You should too. The United States was created with several checks and balances to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the United States. Each of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the United States determine the unconstitutionality of a law, by not voting for it, not acting upon it, or making a judgement against it, respectively. But it doesn’t stop there. The states are able to nullify unconstitutional laws. A jury of your peers can strike down a law in a case and if this happens in a pattern of cases, it effectively nullifies that law.

It wasn’t constitutional. The constitution simply restricted the United States from overriding state laws for the importation of persons for a certain period.

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 1

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” - USA constitution

Hmmm, seems clear that the Supremes are vested with all judicial power in the USA , as all other courts are inferior . Perhaps we disagree on what judicial power is ? I can’t fathom how you can believe Judicial Power is vested elsewhere. You have proven you can read.

Well, maybe not. There is reading, and there is understanding. Declaring parts of the constitution unconstitutional does require a complete refutation of the concept that words have a definable meaning. What part of the constitution is not constitutional again ? The 17th amendment ? Please run by with your logic on that one more time.

Then please tell us what part about a bear shitting in the woods you find unbearable.

Constitutional blinders

It is pretty amazing the ability of people to read the constitution as harmonious with their world view.

Listen to the gasp in the crowd (law students), at a senate candidate’s opinion that her religion is grounded in the Constitution, and her seemed surprise to learn of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Surely she must have read it, yet it so strongly opposed her beliefs, she cannot understand it, or remember it.

1st amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - USA constitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded

“The judicial Power of Unicyclist.com, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” - the Unicyclist.com Articles of Organization

Does that really make the Supreme Court of Unicyclist.com the final arbiter of what is lawful for the Unicyclist.com organization to do?

Yes it does Gilby!

To your great credit, you have never censored mine, or anyone else’s posts, as far as I know. Some day I would like to meet Gilby and ride unicycles.

Gilby does have almost SCOTUS powers on this forum. He is an excellent forum moderator. I have quit other forums once moderators deleted my posts. That pissed me off. You can piss on Gilby’s ideas here though. Thanks Gilby:), he never deleted my posts. Sort of like a Supreme Court that does nothing. Nothing really gets decided here, and not by Gilby.

OK, then you owe a tax of $100.

No, I said you were a judge, not a congressman

Until we elect a uni forum congress, we can’t levy a tax. 100 $ for every additional wheel after the constitutionally mandated one (in civilized wheeled society), sounds fair to me.:slight_smile:

Congress is not an elected body in this case and a tax has been imposed by the unicyclist.com congress on you and the supreme court has either not heard a case yet about its ability to levy a tax (which using your prior logic means it’s lawful to do so), or it has heard a case and determined that you are required to pay whatever tax is imposed on you. As the final arbiter, your opinion, the opinion of a jury of your peers, or the opinion of a judge in some other jurisdiction, has no power to prevent the Unicyclist.com organization from taking any and all of your property of anyone else’s property.

The 1st amendment restricts the United States, not the States. At the time of ratification of the constitution and the bill of rights, several of the states had state religions. The 1st amendment didn’t abolish that.

Her surprise seems to be more about the incorrect claim that the 1st amendment has the words “separation of church and state” in it. It does not, and it doesn’t mean the same thing.

Why shouldn’t a local school board be able to taylor the education offering to that of what their customers demand?

A bit confused. I never meant to invoke any sort of moral truth, as you seem to have taken. I know I mentioned it in my last post, which was certainly a blunder, but upon realization of this, I couldn’t type fast enough to fix things before the edit timer ran out. In fact, my initial post sarcastically ascribes the SC as doling out TRUTH (which, as we both agree, they don’t).

I meant to invoke truth only to mean that, in a case regarding constitutionality, there is a best answer, which the justices try to reach.

I don’t mean to invoke absolute Truth (with a capital T) or moral truth, but rather the truth of whether a particular ruling is the best. For example, Lawrence v. Texas explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, “holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly” (yes, I quoted wikipedia).

In Lawrence, the court ruled “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.” That is to say, it is true that the ruling in Bowers was not the best answer.

So I guess I’m guilty of mis-using the word truth, and feel a bit silly for having done so.

Thanks for the John Brown video - an interesting bit of history.

I remember the GA and TX decisions, they were news at the time.

Here is a good vid about the “Dover decision”. It explains why “intelligent design”, cannot be taught in public funded schools, even if the local school board wants to. A fairly entertaining story. I am surprised that O’Donnel was not knowledgeable about this case. I thought her expertise was in religion and the Constitution. How hard can it be to watch a few you tube vids to prep for a Senate run ? The law students in the audience were notably shocked during parts of the debate. To see a supposedly educated person beaten so hard with the stupid stick in public was clearly unexpected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R54LGX5_10&feature=related

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - USA constitution

Your contention that the 1st amendment establishment clause only applies to Federal actions, not state or local law, is unhistorical. Please watch enough of the above video about the Dover decision to understand it was a lower Federal court ruling that declared a local school board’s ruling unconstitutional. This is because the judge ruled that “intelligent design theory”, was not science, but rather the old wine of Creationism in a new bottle. Creationism had made it all the way to the top, then lost at the Supreme Court, previously. Precedence now rules the day, after higher courts have denied appeals of the Dover ruling.

The word “Congress” , in the first amendment, is lawfully interpreted as “any legislators”, Federal, state, or a local school board. You are entitled to your own opinion about the wisdom of this, but not your own history of case law.