Active Users:673 Time:23/03/2026 03:02:47 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Well, they do, but they modify, they don't automatically negate. Joel Send a noteboard - 22/10/2010 08:31:47 PM
It is simply piss poor logic to claim that an Amendment the Constitution is over ridden by the original document. Nothing more then judges rewriting the document to fit their ideal. I know the judges decided they have to power to read anything they choose into the law but it has gotten out of hand.

Not unless that's specifically stated, and I can only recall four times that's happened. And, again, the logic here is sound and practical; if the Tenth Amendment can preempt the Supremacy Clause then any and all states can back out of any and all treaties between the US and foreign states any time they wish, which is clearly unacceptable in a federal nation. Imagine crossing the Nullification debates with the War of 1812, because that's what would result. I know sometimes TX has WANTED to declare war on Mexico again (and vice versa) but as one of the 50 states that's not really viable.

Which is all well and good for saying the Supremacy Clause trumps the Tenth Amendment, but has no bearing on the other 26.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" damookster - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 986 Views
You don't want her? nossy - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 544 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 413 Views
Now there's an answer Isaac - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 509 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* Roland00 - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 176 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 389 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? Isaac - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 382 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled? Joel - 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM 425 Views
Issac has a point. Tashmere - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 388 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? Mark - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 368 Views
Depends where you live. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 467 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM 174 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics snoopcester - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 360 Views
Exactly. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 497 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 510 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics. Avendesora - 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM 362 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote. Joel - 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM 360 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 397 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. Joel - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 381 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. Camilla - 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM 496 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 483 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... TaskmasterJack - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 411 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) Gaps - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 400 Views
It's a valid argument. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 366 Views
i feel kinda bad for her Aisha - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 459 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to MightyYT - 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM 410 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM* Jragghen - 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM 222 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 403 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* random thoughts - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 173 Views
Yep, this. *NM* Zalis - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 200 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* rebelaessedai - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 175 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 376 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 376 Views
I actually felt bad for her snoopcester - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 386 Views
She's right. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 506 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* Avendesora - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 270 Views
It is on youtube snoopcester - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 423 Views
Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 433 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 387 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 354 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 361 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 443 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 363 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 403 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. nossy - 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM 459 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM 396 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. nossy - 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM 450 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM 469 Views
Ok. nossy - 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM 360 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM 396 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. Camilla - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 424 Views
Done. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 361 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 135 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? Joel - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 409 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous. Joel - 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM 391 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM 161 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM 332 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS random thoughts - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 359 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. Macharius - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 367 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say random thoughts - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM 363 Views
No it does not show that. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 359 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 335 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 161 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM 149 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 365 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 352 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 334 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 378 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM 162 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya? Joel - 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM 334 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM 359 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM 435 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM 349 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM 377 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM 339 Views
Well, they do, but they modify, they don't automatically negate. Joel - 22/10/2010 08:31:47 PM 345 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 351 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 337 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 344 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? Joel - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 467 Views
She's so... bewildered! beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 360 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here random thoughts - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 341 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM* beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM 150 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 349 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM 348 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. everynametaken - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 453 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited random thoughts - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 342 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM 358 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM 145 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: Dreaded Anomaly - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 409 Views
exactly damookster - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 401 Views
She started out alright nossy - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 343 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM 363 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM 509 Views
Lol. Bush-League. LadyLorraine - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 321 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 162 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states. MightyYT - 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM 477 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM 362 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question? random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM 374 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM 162 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM 444 Views
*double posts* Joel - 22/10/2010 08:44:07 PM 361 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 153 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 143 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do! beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM 345 Views
...goddammit beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:35:37 PM 382 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes