Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

    Originally posted by alfablue View Post
    LOL- not according to the people who have had "their rights trampled" on. They are exactly the same thing.

    One person's right is another persons non right. That's how all of these fights have shaped over history. Ok, not all.

    You just keep going on how rights always get expanded on- when it's only expanded to specific people, which then "narrows" others- according to them.
    The question that I asked is whether ever, in our history, the Court ruled that individuals are entitled to certain rights, then came back at some later point in time and decided they weren't. There are no such examples, at least that I can think of.

    What you are talking about is the issue of one set of rights bumping up against another set of rights. For example, to what extent can the rights or religious freedom be infringed upon by another person's right of privacy, or whatever.

    The abortion cases have always been about the women's right to choose versus the rights of the unborn child, and that's where the tug and pull always occurs. But in no instances have the courts simply said "ok, we've changed our mind. That right no longer exists."
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
      The question that I asked is whether ever, in our history, the Court ruled that individuals are entitled to certain rights, then came back at some later point in time and decided they weren't. There are no such examples, at least that I can think of.
      Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
      Adler v. Board of Education, 1952
      Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986
      Pace v. Alabamam, 1883
      Wolf v. Colorado, 1949
      Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

      ...

      Nope, never has the Supreme Court ruled with in favor of racism, intolerence, or bias where it was overruled with follow up Supreme Court decisions or Constitutional Ammendments.
      “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

      Live Radio from 100.3

      Comment


      • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

        Originally posted by aparch View Post
        Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
        Adler v. Board of Education, 1952
        Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986
        Pace v. Alabamam, 1883
        Wolf v. Colorado, 1949
        Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

        ...

        Nope, never has the Supreme Court ruled with in favor of racism, intolerence, or bias where it was overruled with follow up Supreme Court decisions or Constitutional Ammendments.
        Maybe you could enlighten us as to exactly what constitutional rights were enumerated by the Court as existing in individuals in this country in your cases, rights which were then taken away in later cases.

        Don't quit your day job.
        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
          Maybe you could enlighten us as to exactly what constitutional rights were enumerated by the Court as existing in individuals in this country in your cases, rights which were then taken away in later cases.

          Don't quit your day job.
          How about you do some research for once and look them up yourself?

          And I wasnt planning on it, because arguing with your dumb a** doesn't pay the bills.
          “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

          Live Radio from 100.3

          Comment


          • Originally posted by aparch View Post
            M.A.G.A!


            These seem like nice folk who can see things even keeled from both sides...
            At least they were civil.
            What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

            Comment


            • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

              Originally posted by aparch View Post
              How about you do some research for once and look them up yourself?

              And I wasnt planning on it, because arguing with your dumb a** doesn't pay the bills.
              Your first four cases are almost identical in format. In each instance a state has passed a statute. Someone in that state affected by the statute challenges it, claiming that the statute violates a constitutionally protected right. And in each instance the Supreme Court rejected that argument. In subsequent cases the Supreme Court reversed itself.

              I don't claim that the Supreme Court never reverses earlier decisions. To the contrary, there are plenty of examples of that. But my proposition, had you cared to actually read it, is that there aren't any examples where rights have been established or recognized by Supreme Court decision, only to be taken away by subsequent Supreme Court decision. The reversals always occur when the Supreme Court first rules that no such right exists, then society and society's morals and way of looking at things changes, and the Supreme Court reverses the earlier decision and recognizes the right.

              In short, once a right is established, it isn't going anywhere.
              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

              Comment


              • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

                Originally posted by rufus View Post
                At least they were civil.
                Fck their feelings.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                  Your first four cases are almost identical in format. In each instance a state has passed a statute. Someone in that state affected by the statute challenges it, claiming that the statute violates a constitutionally protected right. And in each instance the Supreme Court rejected that argument. In subsequent cases the Supreme Court reversed itself.

                  I don't claim that the Supreme Court never reverses earlier decisions. To the contrary, there are plenty of examples of that. But my proposition, had you cared to actually read it, is that there aren't any examples where rights have been established or recognized by Supreme Court decision, only to be taken away by subsequent Supreme Court decision. The reversals always occur when the Supreme Court first rules that no such right exists, then society and society's morals and way of looking at things changes, and the Supreme Court reverses the earlier decision and recognizes the right.

                  In short, once a right is established, it isn't going anywhere.
                  I'm not sure there's been another situation in our history where a large population wanted a right abolished and also had the power and opportunity to make it happen.

                  In most cases, once a right is established, opposition to it is marginalized relatively quickly. That's not the case here.
                  Last edited by GrinCDXX; 09-17-2018, 07:27 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

                    Originally posted by GrinCDXX View Post
                    I'm not sure there's been another situation in our history where a large population wanted a right abolished and also had the power and opportunity to make it happen.
                    I'm sure if you could go back 170 years, many in the South would argue they had a "God-given right" to own slaves, and thus why they tried to leave the Union when Lincoln was elected POTUS.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                      I'm sure if you could go back 170 years, many in the South would argue they had a "God-given right" to own slaves, and thus why they tried to leave the Union when Lincoln was elected POTUS.
                      Opportunity to make it happen by getting their people on the court is what I meant.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                        I'm sure if you could go back 170 years, many in the South would argue they had a "God-given right" to own slaves, and thus why they tried to leave the Union when Lincoln was elected POTUS.
                        I'm not certain, but I don't think SCOTUS ever ruled that the right to own slaves was unconstitutional - they never had to, because it was taken care of by the Emancipation Proclamation in the border states and then the Reconstruction Acts and Amendments. Imagine that - the executive and legislative branches actually going their fricken jobs.
                        If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                          I'm not certain, but I don't think SCOTUS ever ruled that the right to own slaves was unconstitutional - they never had to, because it was taken care of by the Emancipation Proclamation in the border states and then the Reconstruction Acts and Amendments. Imagine that - the executive and legislative branches actually going their fricken jobs.
                          Don't forget the several states that had to ratify the amendments.
                          CCT '77 & '78
                          4 kids
                          5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                          1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                          ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                          I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                          Comment


                          • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

                            Originally posted by joecct View Post
                            Don't forget the several states that had to ratify the amendments.
                            Per Lincoln, the Confederate states weren't needed to ratify the 13th as long as they were in open rebellion. They were occupied territories until they ratified new state constitutions that abolished slavery and setup new legislatures that were sworn and committed to the Union. Three days after making that statement, Lincoln was assassinated.

                            Johnson was a good ol' boy Southern Dem who allowed a lot of racist nonsense by the traitor states in readmitting them to the Union, and basically undermined the process of Reconstruction, to the point that it was allowed to die out and the South was left to its own devices of the KKK, poll taxes, citizenship tests, sharecropping, and all sorts of other quasi-slavery baloney under the guise of "states' rights".

                            Comment


                            • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

                              Needed more proof bias exists? https://www.infowars.com/no-censorsh...idents-search/

                              Comment


                              • Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

                                Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                                I'm not certain, but I don't think SCOTUS ever ruled that the right to own slaves was unconstitutional - they never had to, because it was taken care of by the Emancipation Proclamation in the border states and then the Reconstruction Acts and Amendments. Imagine that - the executive and legislative branches actually going their fricken jobs.
                                Whether or not they had to decide, might as well stick it in the Constitution to ensure there are no questions. You could justify, however, that Dred Scott's case did determine that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X