Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:36 No.10811212

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:36 No.10811212

Replies: >>10811298

>>10811044 (OP)

Kelo...

I will never forget that decision. A very dark day in America's history. Anyone paying attention would've realized that there was nowhere safe anymore in this country.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:37 No.10811245

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:37 No.10811245

Replies: >>10811388

File: 1362274644798.jpg-(17 KB, 250x250, costanza.jpg)

17 KB JPG

>Roe v. Wade
>Worse than Bush v. Gore

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:37 No.10811247

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:37 No.10811247

Warren v. District of Columbia

you didnt say federal supreme court

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:38 No.10811260

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:38 No.10811260

Replies: >>10811346 >>10812842

>>10811044 (OP)
For those non-Ameritards among us, context would be helpful.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:38 No.10811269

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:38 No.10811269

Replies: >>10811426

I'm not a lawyer or law student so I know like two of those.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:38 No.10811280

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:38 No.10811280

Replies: >>10811289 >>10812934

>Roe v. Wade
>Bad

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811289

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811289

>>10811280
>Making shit up
>Good

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811291

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811291

>>10811044 (OP)
>Bush Vs Gore

>implying that didnt save us from Gore Super Cereal wrath.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811298

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811298

Replies: >>10811597 >>10811637 >>10811713

>>10811212
>Kelo v. City of New London

Yup

> In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

> Majority: Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
> Dissent: O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas

How the fuck do liberals claim conservatives are in the pockets of muh corporashuns is beyond me after this decision.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811300

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811300

Replies: >>10811337 >>10811364

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Kelo v. City of New London wasnt that bad the Feds should have nothing to do with eminent domain

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811304

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:39 No.10811304

Replies: >>10811364 >>10811394 >>10812795

>only recent cases

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is way worse than those.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:40 No.10811334

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:40 No.10811334

Replies: >>10811369 >>10811408 >>10811678

>roe v. wade

>canonical list of places where abortion is controversial
1. Nigger Africa
2. The United States of America
3. Spic Countries
4. The Philippines, home of the garbage azn.
5. Vatican City

Enjoy your third worldness, christfucker.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:40 No.10811337

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:40 No.10811337

>>10811300

yup right there at the top

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:40 No.10811346

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:40 No.10811346

>>10811260
Seconding.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811354

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811354

Replies: >>10813010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811360

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811360

Replies: >>10811390

What's the one that held that separation of church and state meant that the church is exempt from employment laws?
Because that's pretty fucking dumb.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811364

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811364

Replies: >>10811459

>>10811300

I'm >>10811304

I may disagree with your views, but at least you understand the importance of the commerce clause.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811369

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:41 No.10811369

Replies: >>10811391

>>10811334
There's nothing wrong with abortion. There's something terribly wrong about judges assuming the duties of a legislature to create new rights without democratic process; an autocracy. There's also something terribly wrong with making shit up; no right to abortion exists in our constitution.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811385

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811385

Replies: >>10811407 >>10811566 >>10811623 >>10811716

>Citizens United vs. FEC
nuff said

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811388

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811388

>>10811245
it is tho

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811390

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811390

Replies: >>10811411

>>10811360
That's not dumb, that's " no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811391

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811391

Replies: >>10811480 >>10811503

>>10811369
If the Supremes say it exists in the constitution, it exists in the constitution. That's their role. They tell us what the constitution means. If you don't like it, change the constitution.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811394

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811394

>>10811304

Ah yes, the secret starvation campaign of FDR that no one ever mentions. The best kept secret in history. There are barely even any articles on it.

Basically, I've had to speak with geriatrics to find out the truth from that era and it was barbaric what happened.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811397

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:42 No.10811397

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811407

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811407

>>10811385
>implying

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811408

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811408

Replies: >>10811485

>>10811334
>evaluating supreme court decisions on muh feels instead of the letter of the law

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811411

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811411

Replies: >>10812146

>>10811390
It is no way that.
The only way you can read it that way is you are retarded or a judge.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811426

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:43 No.10811426

>>10811269
you can look them up on google takes like 2-3 minutes

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:44 No.10811448

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:44 No.10811448

You might as well put Hollingsworth v Perry on the list right now. Why take a gay marriage case if it's messy enough that they probably won't make any law about gay marriage.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811459

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811459

>>10811364
It is not that i think they should be allowed to take whatever they want
I just think the protections should be in the Connecticut state Constitution

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811473

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811473

Replies: >>10811601 >>10811645

The one coming in June when they say gay marriage is protected by the constitution and give faggots full gay marriage even in states that voted to put a ban in their state constitutions.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811474

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811474

Wickard v filburn, basically destroyed a lot of the bill of rights
Mfw liberals mock conservatives who want to make a new machine gun legal in a state, but then want to make weed legal, and get shitslapped by obama, and dont realize the implications of trying to destroy federalism when it comes to weed
Gj liberals, no weed 4 u.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811480

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811480

>>10811391
>being this stupid
Everyone acknowledges Roe v. Wade was shit and substantive due process is nonsense; even those who once argued for it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811485

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:45 No.10811485

>>10811408
>no idea what's even being discussed

/mlp/ pls go

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:46 No.10811503

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:46 No.10811503

>>10811391
but they will just say that is not what we ment

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:47 No.10811531

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:47 No.10811531

Replies: >>10811561 >>10811587

>Start checking these cases
>Stop at the first one
I still have top understand why americans are so rabid drug apologists.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:48 No.10811561

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:48 No.10811561

Replies: >>10811644

>>10811531
Scalia was the swing vote that made Gonzales v. Raich be settled the way it was, and he was dead wrong.

Look at Thomas' dissent, the usual originalist partner of Scalia.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:48 No.10811566

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:48 No.10811566

Replies: >>10811648

>>10811385
thisthisthis

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:49 No.10811587

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:49 No.10811587

>>10811531
In the opinion Stevens basically says that its dumb that the gov't regulates commerce that way, but they have the power to do it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:49 No.10811597

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:49 No.10811597

>>10811298
Cognitive Dissonance.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:49 No.10811601

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:49 No.10811601

Replies: >>10811665

>>10811473
Fuck those states.
If we listened to every individual state before deciding on an issue there'd still be slavery.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811623

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811623

Replies: >>10811674

>>10811385
There was nothing wrong with CU

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811628

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811628

Replies: >>10811797

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811637

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811637

>>10811298
Because they are.
The democrats are too, but they're just a tiny bit sneakier about it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811644

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811644

Replies: >>10811675

>>10811561
If Scalia would have ruled any other way in Gonzales V. Raich, Congress would have implemented term limits onto the court and possibly would have expanded the court and packed it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811645

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811645

Replies: >>10811735 >>10811765

>>10811473
>implying it will even have a majority opinion

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811648

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:50 No.10811648

Replies: >>10811676 >>10812035

>>10811566
except that was a god tier ruling defending freedom of speech

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811660

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811660

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_et_al_v._United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811665

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811665

Replies: >>10811695

>>10811601

>2013
>Thinking slavery is wrong

Cotton-pickers aren't allowed on /pol/

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811674

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811674

Replies: >>10811703 >>10811711 >>10812035

>>10811623
Karl Rove, please go

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811675

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811675

Replies: >>10811704

>>10811644
Congress can't give Article III judges term limits.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811676

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811676

Replies: >>10811711

>>10811648
No it was not.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811678

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:51 No.10811678

>>10811334
>Implying its not a big deal behind closed doors in Europe.

You would be surprised how many people are against abortion in Europe.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811695

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811695

>>10811665
It's economically inefficient.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811703

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811703

>>10811674
Jobless occupy protester please go.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811704

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811704

Replies: >>10811755

>>10811675
Yes they can.

Let's not forget that at the time the White House would have backed them up.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811711

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:52 No.10811711

Replies: >>10811798 >>10811802 >>10811809 >>10811825 >>10811843

>>10811674
>>10811676
Why do you think cooperatives of people shouldn't be free to spend their money on politics, like individual people do?

You don't lose your rights by being in a cooperative/collective.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:53 No.10811713

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:53 No.10811713

Replies: >>10811798

>>10811298
Wait wait, I'm a little confused as to what that means.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:53 No.10811716

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:53 No.10811716

Replies: >>10811779 >>10811826 >>10811827

>>10811385

Wasn't the ruling on that like a single fucking page?

I seem to remember the Supreme Court was just like "We feel this way just cuz" and that was it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:53 No.10811735

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:53 No.10811735

>>10811645

The swing vote has voted for gay rights issues before. Its fucking over man. Plus fucking chief justice is obama's little bitch. And with all the fucking "republicans" signing that brief to support them its probably gonna go their way.

How long will people stand for this crap?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:54 No.10811755

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:54 No.10811755

Replies: >>10811824

>>10811704
The Constitution explicitly says they serve on good behavior. They couldn't give them term limits without causing a constitutional crisis.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:54 No.10811765

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:54 No.10811765

>>10811645
Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence and Romer.
Breyer and Ginsburg will vote as they did in Lawrence and Romer.
Sotomayor and Kagan will vote with the above.
It's over.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811779

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811779

>>10811716
>Implying length of a ruling makes it more valid.

Stop trying.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811791

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811791

Replies: >>10811830 >>10811835

>Bush v. Gore

>State of Florida conducts illegal recount

>SCOTUS says illegal recount must be stopped

>Worst court decision

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811797

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811797

Replies: >>10811844

>>10811628
>being this dumb

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811798

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811798

Replies: >>10811861 >>10812035

>>10811711
Because there is no accountability.
And you don't lose rights, it's just that the group itself as an entity does not have the rights you as an individual does.

>>10811713
Areas considered for "Public use" can be used by private companies.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811802

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811802

Replies: >>10812035

>>10811711
You're completely right. They just shouldn't be able to do it anonymously.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811809

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:55 No.10811809

Replies: >>10811842

>>10811711
>corporations
>people

God away Mitt.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811824

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811824

Replies: >>10811852

>>10811755
>Good behavior

That could be easily changed with an act of Congress defining good behavior as a term with anything longer being bad behavior.

There would be no constitutional crisis if two branches agreed to it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811825

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811825

>>10811711
Because feeling

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811826

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811826

>>10811716
The majority opinion is 40 pages in the supreme court reporter.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811827

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811827

>>10811716
Isnt the first amendment like two sentences

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811830

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811830

>>10811791
The Supreme Court had no authority to make decision for the State of Florida. Yes, it was illegal, but it should've been remanded back to the Florida State Supreme Court to be decided. The only question before them was a violation of Equal Protection, which was decided 7-2. The decision to stop the count was 5-4.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811835

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:56 No.10811835

>>10811791
Lololol.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811842

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811842

Replies: >>10811908

>>10811809
Corporations are collectives of people, and always have had legal personhood.

Don't corporations enjoy 4th Amendment rights?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811843

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811843

Replies: >>10811864 >>10811921 >>10812035

>>10811711
Except corporations are not cooperative collectives. The majority of the members of the group have no say in how the money is spent.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811844

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811844

Replies: >>10812132

>>10811797
>violating my thirteenth amendment rights because "muh feelings" and "muh new south"

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811852

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811852

Replies: >>10811915

>>10811824
Good behavior is defined with a long history of case law. Congress couldn't change it without steamrolling the judiciary.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811861

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811861

Replies: >>10811886

>>10811798
So would you be ok with the government shutting down the New York Times

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811864

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:57 No.10811864

>>10811843
Then they shouldn't be a member of it? They consent to it if they remain a part of it. The point stands.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:58 No.10811871

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:58 No.10811871

Replies: >>10811900

Griswold v. Connecticut was a decision that needed to be made.
Because what I can and cannot do with my dick, including putting a piece of rubber on it, is not the business of the state.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:58 No.10811886

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:58 No.10811886

Replies: >>10811949

>>10811861
No?
Those are not even slightly onnectedd.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:58 No.10811900

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:58 No.10811900

Replies: >>10811935

>>10811871
Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Take it up with your legislature; don't corrupt the courts, faggot.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811908

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811908

Replies: >>10811927

>>10811842
That's some historical revisionism right there.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811915

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811915

>>10811852
>Good behavior is defined with a long history of case law

No it is not.

Good behavior is a holdover from Crown Law and would not hold up to a legislative challenge.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811921

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811921

>>10811843
Do you even own stock?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811927

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)20:59 No.10811927

>>10811908
Please look up the history of corporate personhood and fuck off.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:00 No.10811935

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:00 No.10811935

Replies: >>10811976

>>10811900
The legislature instituted a law that made it illegal to put rubber on my dong.
I'm pretty sure I cannot trust them to make a reasonable decision.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:00 No.10811949

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:00 No.10811949

Replies: >>10811991 >>10812011 >>10812037

>>10811886
Why it is a Corporation why does it have 1st amendment rights?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:01 No.10811976

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:01 No.10811976

>>10811935
It is not the problem of the courts if a legislature enacts legislation that is within its power to do so.

If you're saying you couldn't make such a law be repealed, does it not follow, then, most people in the state don't care or approve of the law?

You're just trying to use the courts to usurp democracy.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:02 No.10811987

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:02 No.10811987

>National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:02 No.10811991

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:02 No.10811991

>>10811949
Because under the law it is a person.

Equal protection under the law applies to it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:02 No.10811999

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:02 No.10811999

Replies: >>10813010

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
>let blacks mix with whites in school
>education falls to shit

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:03 No.10812011

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:03 No.10812011

>>10811949
Because people don't lose their rights when they cooperate.

What, just because a corporation owns property, the police can search it without a warrant? no!

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:04 No.10812035

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:04 No.10812035

Replies: >>10812064 >>10812074

>>10811843
>>10811802
>>10811798
>>10811648
>>10811674
FUCK CORPORATE SPENDING IN ELECTIONS
CORPORATIOMS ARE NOT PEOPLE
Corporations like greenpeace and peta shodnt be able to spend in elections. And anonymous political speech never was used in revolutionary war america. It is constitutional to ban anonymous political speech. Free speech isnt freedom of consequences, if you are mean to someone, you have to be identified and detained.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:04 No.10812037

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:04 No.10812037

>>10811949
No, it is a corporation that prints paper with the words of human beings printed on them.
This is expression and covered by the first amendment.

Making a group with anonymous members that can give whatever amount it pleases to any political cause it wishes, circumventing the need to identify yourself with political contributions above a certain amount, is not.
It is not a matter of free speech, it's a loophole.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:05 No.10812064

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:05 No.10812064

>>10812035
>People who own property collectively shouldn't be free to use their property the way they do if they operated as individuals

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:05 No.10812074

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:05 No.10812074

>>10812035
Green peace and PETA are not even a fucking blip on the political radar.
You dense motherfucker.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:05 No.10812087

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:05 No.10812087

Replies: >>10812121 >>10812134

>>10811044 (OP)

Wasn't Griswold v Connecticut the case that said that Connecticut couldn't ban contraceptives for no reason?

How is that a dumb decision?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:06 No.10812121

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:06 No.10812121

Replies: >>10812212

>>10812087
Because hurrduur state rights.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:07 No.10812132

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:07 No.10812132

Replies: >>10812183

>>10811844
>implying equal protection isn't i thing

I bet you love Plessy v. Ferguson too

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:07 No.10812134

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:07 No.10812134

Replies: >>10812169 >>10812212

>>10812087
Because all powers not prohibited to the States, or reserved to the Federal Government, are reserved to the States.

Show me where the States are prohibited from banning contraceptives?

It's absurd, because States have ALWAYS historically been able to do that since the very founding; it doesn't cease to be Constitutional without AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:07 No.10812146

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:07 No.10812146

Replies: >>10812207

>>10811411

The separation is as much to protect the church from the state as it is to protect the state from the church.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:08 No.10812169

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:08 No.10812169

Replies: >>10812195

>>10812134
Apparently the right to use condoms was reserved for the people.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:09 No.10812183

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:09 No.10812183

Replies: >>10812255

>>10812132
Rehnquist thought Plessy was decided correctly, so did Jackson.
Bite me.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:09 No.10812195

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:09 No.10812195

>>10812169
hurrrrrrrrr

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:09 No.10812201

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:09 No.10812201

Replies: >>10812223

>>10811044 (OP)
HOW IS GIRSWOLD A BAD CASE

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812207

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812207

Replies: >>10812257

>>10812146
True.
But it was clearly not designed to give the church special privileges.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812212

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812212

Replies: >>10812250

>>10812121
>>10812134

Except of course, when state law tramples on federal rights. If a state banned firearms, or criticizing the state legislature, you'd be all for the Supreme court overturning the law in question.

Privacy has historically been held to be related to the liberty interests in the first amendment, hence, the decision.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812223

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812223

Replies: >>10812344

>>10812201
Because it's a part of the Warren Court's innovation in jurisprudence, "making shit up".

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812231

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812231

Replies: >>10812274

>>10811044 (OP)

>2013
>thinking gore would have made a better president than Bush

seriously faggot? The guy is nothing but a conman. Preached doom via global warming for years, while streaking around the planet on his jet, living in his mansion, and now selling his broadcast company to oil tycoons rather than to a conservative

he was out for nothing but himself the whole time. The only difference is that he was an underhanded slimy weasel about it. He also would have just bent over and gone "u guys... srsly?" when we got blown the fuck up in 2001 and we'd be a weaker nation because of him.

Not saying Bush was the best president ever, or even a great president. But he was decent. better than any shit stain the deomcrats have run since clinton, including but not limited to the nigger in chief fucking the nation into the poor house as we speak

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812234

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:10 No.10812234

Replies: >>10812266 >>10812338

File: 1362276658731.jpg-(112 KB, 945x1205, 1344035320787.jpg)

112 KB JPG

>ctrl-f scott
>nothing
>mfw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:11 No.10812250

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:11 No.10812250

Replies: >>10812364

>>10812212
Of course, because there's a 2nd Amendment; it's an enumerated right.
Show me any enumerated right to contraceptives or privacy outside of the 1st and 4th Amendments.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:11 No.10812255

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:11 No.10812255

>>10812183
why you mad, tho?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:11 No.10812257

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:11 No.10812257

Replies: >>10812309

>>10812207

It kind of has to be though. I mean, think about it for a second. If you held that the Equal Employment law applied to churches, you'd be seeing a zillion lawsuits against the Catholic church for refusing to ordain women as priests (a job that the church pays a salary for).

Rightly or wrongly, you can't deny that this would HUGELY affect how the catholic church operated and would be a colossal intrusion of state power into the religious sphere.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:12 No.10812266

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:12 No.10812266

Replies: >>10812304

>>10812234
>thinking that case would be dislike on /pol/

It is pretty much unintelligible though.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:12 No.10812274

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:12 No.10812274

Replies: >>10812319

>>10812231
>thinking gore would have made a better president than Bush
And here we see the delicate non-legal mind. That's not the issue; I'm happy Bush one. The issue is the decision was blatantly wrong and overstepped judicial authority; it should have been remanded back to the Florida State Supreme Court.

>Hating when Justices do stupid shit must mean you hate the stuff they do stupid shit for

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:13 No.10812304

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:13 No.10812304

Replies: >>10812353

>>10812266
wat

where am I?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:13 No.10812309

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:13 No.10812309

Replies: >>10812445

>>10812257
The law already dictates behavior a religion can and cannot partake in.
Human sacrifice, despite whatever religious beliefs you may hold, still isn't legal.
This is a specific concession to specific beliefs, which runs counter to the separation of church and state.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:14 No.10812319

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:14 No.10812319

Replies: >>10812357

>>10812274

>ur dumb
>"I'm happy bush one"

...please stop

>overstepped judicial authority

Actually no, it really didnt, as there were federal laws being debated as well

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812338

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812338

Replies: >>10812511

>>10812234

Why would we be against that? The constitution ends where our feelings begin.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812344

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812344

Replies: >>10812391

>>10812223
How was anything made up? It is unconstitutional for the Gov to have the authority to just walk right in to your house and arrest you over menial shit.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812353

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812353

Replies: >>10812411

>>10812304
It was basically

>implying niggers are people

with some judicial gloss on it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812357

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812357

Replies: >>10812626 >>10812675

>>10812319
The Federal issue was decided 7-2; an Equal Protection Issue. The issue to stop the counting, which should've been remanded, was not a Federal issue; it was decided 5-4, mainly along Conservative/Liberal lines. The corruption is obvious.

Souter seriously considered resigning as the Court lost of all its integrity that day.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812364

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:15 No.10812364

Replies: >>10812430

>>10812250

Why is that relevant? The bill of rights is there to protect the states from the federal government. At the founding of the nation I know Virginia at least had a state church, and I suspect quite a few of the others did too.

http://www.history.org/almanack/life/religion/religiondfn.cfm

That would directly contradict the first amendment's enumerated rights, and nobody had a problem with that until you got the whole incorporation deal. Why should it matter if it's an enumerated right and not an unenumerated one? Either it applies to the states or it doesn't.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:16 No.10812391

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:16 No.10812391

>>10812344
...Yes, yes it is. It is well within the authority of the Government to, with a warrant, enter your house and arrest you for a crime.
>Menial shit
That's a very non-legal term. Crimes are crimes, and it had the authority to make contraceptives banned, just like any other substance or item. Kinder eggs, for example.
>B-b-but I need them!
Some people need medical marijuana too, tough shit. Take it up with your legislature.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:16 No.10812394

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:16 No.10812394

Replies: >>10812428

>mfw this thread has some pretty decent discussion

Why isn't there a /law/ board yet?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:17 No.10812411

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:17 No.10812411

>>10812353
I don't know what to say....

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:18 No.10812428

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:18 No.10812428

Replies: >>10812518

>>10812394

Because 1 broad thread wont fill 10 pages.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:18 No.10812430

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:18 No.10812430

Replies: >>10812578

>>10812364
>Why should it matter if it's an enumerated right and not an unenumerated one?
The courts have no authority to determine the unenumerated rights, nor enforce them as a matter of law, anymore than they have the authority to determine natural rights and enforce them as a matter of law.

This should be obvious.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:18 No.10812445

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:18 No.10812445

Replies: >>10812608

>>10812309

One affects religious practice, the other affects the way a church is organizing itself and runs its services. There's a clear difference.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:20 No.10812511

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:20 No.10812511

>>10812338
Why wouldn't you be against it?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:20 No.10812518

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:20 No.10812518

>>10812428
The rest of the board can be filled with

>tfw the qt who sits next to me wasn't impressed by my recitation of the facts of pennoyer v. neff

Ruby !!iPJbBu5S79g
03/02/13(Sat)21:21 No.10812532

Ruby !!iPJbBu5S79g 03/02/13(Sat)21:21 No.10812532

Replies: >>10812580

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:21 No.10812553

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:21 No.10812553

Replies: >>10812664

>>10811044 (OP)
Ausfag here, help me out on why these are bad?
1. They said that contraception was a private matter.
2. They said that a woman can have an abortion.
3. They said that a person can give another person land for redevelopment if the first person can't afford it.
4. They said that you can't recount black votes more than white votes.
5. Cannabis can be made illegal if Congress wants.

Most of these aren't bad, and those that are aren't that bad at all or are only bad following a Congress decision.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:22 No.10812578

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:22 No.10812578

>>10812430

Common law was frequently grounded in the realm of "Natural Rights" Try looking up some of Samuel Adams's court arguments.

Regardless, if your problem is expansion of federal law relative to state power, then why is the problem case Griswold, why isn't it whichever one overturned the slaughterhouse cases and established that the bill of rights could apply to states at all?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:22 No.10812580

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:22 No.10812580

Replies: >>10812687

>>10812532
Dred Scott was decided correctly given the laws at the time you dumb nigger. It was before the 14th Amendment and its citizenship clause.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:23 No.10812608

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:23 No.10812608

Replies: >>10812737

>>10812445
And yet it is regulation of religion by the state, as such it is clearly possible.
You have chosen to draw the arbitrary line at saying the state cannot dictate who gets to wear the funny hats.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:23 No.10812626

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:23 No.10812626

Replies: >>10812659 >>10812685

>>10812357

>souter
>would have risked given gore the win
>wanted to quit afterwards

he should have quit before

Look sometimes you have to legislate from the bench man, not often, but every once in a blue moon its necessary. This was such a case to prevent that god damn whacko from becoming president

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:24 No.10812651

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:24 No.10812651

>>10811044 (OP)
>no Plessy v Ferguson
>has law about marijuana
you are one dumb nigger (aka libertarian)

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:24 No.10812659

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:24 No.10812659

Replies: >>10812722

>>10812626
But Bush did win.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:24 No.10812664

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:24 No.10812664

Replies: >>10812746 >>10812778

>>10812553
1. Because they made shit up and expanded substantive due process to be farcical.
2. Same principle as #1.

States have the authority to ban abortion and contraceptives as it is not prohibited to them by the Constitution; that's the way our law works. States have ALWAYS done this since our founding, and there was never any constitutional question prior.

3. What the fuck is up with your reading? #3 Involved eminent domain; the State seizing land. To them "public use" means "someone benefits!" I.E., States can seize land from one private owner to award it to another.

4. Are you just trolling now? Look at the part of the decision that was a 5-4; the remanding.

5. Read Thomas' dissent and analysis of the Commerce Clause.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:25 No.10812675

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:25 No.10812675

Replies: >>10812717

>>10812357
>The Federal issue was decided 7-2; an Equal Protection Issue. The issue to stop the counting, which should've been remanded, was not a Federal issue; it was decided 5-4, mainly along Conservative/Liberal lines. The corruption is obvious.

What would you have rather had? A crisis when January rolled around and nobody could assume the mantle of the Presidency?

Considering if the Florida Supreme Court would have decided the case we could have opened up a giant fissure in the national conscious creating more sectionalism than we would ever know what to do with.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:25 No.10812685

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:25 No.10812685

>>10812626
>Look sometimes you have to legislate from the bench man, not often, but every once in a blue moon its necessary.
Show me where you derive the authority to do this you despotic law-hating motherfucker.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:25 No.10812687

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:25 No.10812687

File: 1362277536247.jpg-(78 KB, 466x562, 1321826499324.jpg)

78 KB JPG

>>10812580
Actually, it paved the way for it. The supreme court had a chance to correct a wrong and they didn't...which led us to the deconstruction amendments.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:26 No.10812717

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:26 No.10812717

Replies: >>10812764

>>10812675
Courts concern themselves with law, nigger, not any of that other nonsense. I very much prefer it if courts follow the rule of law and interpret law correctly.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:26 No.10812722

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:26 No.10812722

Replies: >>10812828

>>10812659
>But Bush did win.

You can stop with the True Blue approach, the Democratic party is in the shitter and nobody cares about 12 years ago.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812728

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812728

Replies: >>10812828

>people implying Gore would've been better than Bush

Haven't you learned your lesson from Obama? Gore would've Bush just with more gun control and global warming BS.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812737

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812737

Replies: >>10812747 >>10812925

>>10812608

It's not an arbitrary line. The first amendment clearly says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..."

By creating laws that affect the internal workings of how the church is structured (as opposed to mere practice of religious rites) you'd be telling a church who it can and cannot appoint to positions of power, influence, doctrine, etc.

That's a pretty big difference than banning practices, and historically, it provides a clear counterpoint to how the British whom they were rebelling against did things, where the Crown appointed bishops and basically turned the Church of England into a puppet of the government.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812746

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812746

Replies: >>10812769

>>10812664
>States have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies

Yeah, you sure are a smart one.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812747

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:27 No.10812747

>>10812737
This.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:28 No.10812764

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:28 No.10812764

Replies: >>10812807

>>10812717
>Courts concern themselves with law, nigger, not any of that other nonsense. I very much prefer it if courts follow the rule of law and interpret law correctly.

Okay, we remand the recount decision to Florida and we are unable to seat a President on January 20th due to Florida still not being able to decide.

What would happen?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:28 No.10812769

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:28 No.10812769

Replies: >>10812840

>>10812746
That's not it at all. States have the right to ban products and substances, and do so all the time. Think about all those life-saving cancer treatments deprived by the FDA! Deal with it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:28 No.10812778

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:28 No.10812778

Replies: >>10812846 >>10812873

>>10812664
1/2. Wait so these cases said that abortion MUST be legal in every state? I didn't realise that was the case... Should definitely be a state issue.

3. Without buying it? Isn't that just government theft? Surely this should be number 1?

4. I'm honestly not trolling, but reading Supreme Court (or High Court or whatever yours is called) lingo gives me a headache. I don't get the issue with this, and it's irrelevant if those that voted against the recount were conservative.

5. Yeah I get that it should be a state thing, but hey not really important?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:29 No.10812795

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:29 No.10812795

>>10811304
wait what was so bad about it?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:29 No.10812807

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:29 No.10812807

Replies: >>10812846 >>10812960

>>10812764
The courts were moving very quickly. That's not very realistic; the Florida State Supreme Court would've ordered a recount and it would've been settled by January 1st.

The Supreme Court had no power to halt the recount in the State of Florida themselves.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:29 No.10812808

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:29 No.10812808

File: 1362277781118.jpg-(121 KB, 555x346, 1354240524766.jpg)

121 KB JPG

Loving v. Virginia
Roe v. Wade

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812828

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812828

>>10812722
I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to convey.

You implied Gore was insane, I countered with a quip about Bush.
You now say I shouldn't bring up the past.

>>10812728
That's almost funny.
Almost.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812840

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812840

Replies: >>10812882 >>10812920 >>10812970

>>10812769
>States have the right to put up stupid laws for no reason.

Sure is stupid here.

And abortion is a different matter than contraceptives because abortion deals with the rights of another life.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812842

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812842

>>10811260
Do you mean on the cases, or the Supreme Court it self?
The United States has a Federal Supreme Court which is basically the highest jurisdiction of law which follows and protects the Constitution and can overrule unlawful and unconstitutional rulings, like in Illinois which a while ago they tried to ban conceal carry of firearms (which they did) until the Federal Supreme Court came in and bitch-smacked them and said that violated the 2nd Amednment. And they decide wether or not if some laws are unconstitional, like the 2nd Amendment wether or not if it is a Individual or Collective right, and how it applies to certain weaponry and carrying.
State's have their own Supreme Court which basically is tasked to see if their own laws within the state or actions are legal by their own constitution and laws.

As for context for the cases, Bush v. Gore is basically about how Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 Presidental Election, but Bush won the Electoral College vote which is necessary to win (look up the Electoral College if you want to understand how it works).
Roe v. Wade is basically that abortion is federally protected and states can't make their own laws to completely outlaw it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812846

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:30 No.10812846

Replies: >>10812949

>>10812778
Correct on 1/2.
3 requires "just compensation", but it's well beyond the power of eminent domain for the states to transfer property between private owners; if the state takes property, it must be for "public use".
4.See:
>>10812807
5. Meh.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:31 No.10812873

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:31 No.10812873

Replies: >>10812949

>>10812778

3. They do have to pay "fair" i.e. usually market price for it. However, like when they broke up At&t with eminent domain, they basically robbed the company and dismembered it. Since it's the government determining what a "fair" price is, it's usually a fuckup of epic proportions.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:32 No.10812882

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:32 No.10812882

Replies: >>10812932

>>10812840
What do you mean "for no reason"? Do you not understand that legislatures have the power to pass laws doing certain things, in particular banning certain things?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812920

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812920

>>10812840

They do have that right. That's the flip side of democracy, sometimes what the public wants is dumb as shit. Deal with it.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812925

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812925

>>10812737
But it is making laws concerning religion.
If by "Establishment" you take it to mean "Internal workings", then we're also doing that.
We have made special laws and provisions to insure privileges for churches, like tax exemption, which definitely affect how they function.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812932

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812932

Replies: >>10812964 >>10813001 >>10813003

>>10812882
Yes, for no reason.

There's no sane reason to ban contraceptives other than MUH RELIGIONS.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812934

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:33 No.10812934

>>10811280
>Roe v. Wade
>not going against the original purpose and context of having States

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812949

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812949

Replies: >>10813005 >>10813069

>>10812846
>>10812873

In Australia, abortion is illegal in some states and not in others, and usually depends on the method (RU486 is illegal except in Victoria, I think). Should be the same in America.

>>10812846
So basically, in America, if I don't use some land I own, the government will step in, give me fifty bucks and suddenly someone else will own it? Surely I have to give consent?

4. I still don't follow this case. The Supreme Court said you can't recount because you're recounting some people more than others, often basd on racial lines, and that's unequal treatment?

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812960

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812960

>>10812807
>the Florida State Supreme Court would've ordered a recount and it would've been settled by January 1st.

Except that the court already decided the Florida method was wrong, and it would have required new deadlines.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812964

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812964

>>10812932
Well one of the nice things about federalism is you don't have to move very far to get a government that you like.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812970

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:34 No.10812970

>>10812840
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
1. is it delegated to the U.S.? no
2. is it prohibited to the states? no
3. thus it resides with the states and the people; meaning, unless the states assume their authority over it, it remains lawful; otherwise states reserve the power to ban what they are not forbidden from banning

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:35 No.10813001

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:35 No.10813001

>>10812932

One, that's irrelevant. Two, that's not true. Perhaps the state wants to promote population growth. That's a reason.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:35 No.10813003

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:35 No.10813003

>>10812932
The people's representatives feel it was appropriate, thus it was. If you do not like it, feel free to lobby for it to be repealed.

B-b-but what if a majority of the people don't agree with you? Oh no! Better make the courts overrule the democratic will of my state!

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:35 No.10813005

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:35 No.10813005

Replies: >>10813068

>>10812949
It's called the takings clause, and it's a pretty big area of law. They can take land without consent, that's how highways and airports get built.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:36 No.10813010

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:36 No.10813010

>>10811354
>>10811999
These are the only men that get it.

Brown vs the Board of Education is perhaps the worst most destructive measure ever undertaken in the history of this country's legislation. Striving for some vague concept such as "equality" while dismissing the very unequal, very different, very incompatible inequalities between various socioeconomic groups in the nation is a folly only possibly undertaken by a liberal.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:38 No.10813068

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:38 No.10813068

>>10813005
But this is differnt because they're not taking it for a public-owned service like a road, they're taking it to give to someone else. It has a huge bias towards the rich and the corporate and away from the poor and the small businesses.

Anonymous
03/02/13(Sat)21:38 No.10813069

Anonymous 03/02/13(Sat)21:38 No.10813069

>>10812949
It would defeat the purpose of eminent domain if you had to consent to it. The Federal Government may confiscate land from you.

4. There were two issues. One, the recount procedures, which were horribly unequal, which is a non-contest.
The 2nd issue we refer to is the fact the Supreme Court decided to uphold the December 12th recount deadline and end all recounts in Florida themselves, instead of, of course, remanding it back to Florida, have them decide what to do about these unequal recounts, and have them set their own new deadline.