Flying_Mollusk Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Nail me with some specific examples and ill bite 496886[/snapback] Wow, a couple of specific examples. 4th amendment exceptions: California v Hodari D Terry v Illinois United States v Mendenhall Florida v Royer etc Those are cases. There are all part of the numerous exceptions to the 4th amendment push forth by the more conservative court. They are examples of the conservative court legislating certain needs and saying the wrriten text of the 4th amendment does not apply. For all intensive purposes, the 4th amendment is no barrier to police illegal searches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 see in texas..... all judges are put in power by the people. so you see.....at least here in texas.....that arguement holds a hell of a lot of weight...because you can just vote OUT a judge if they dont do what is the will of the people. 496856[/snapback] but remember that county judges and state judges and such can be easily overruled by federal appellate decisions 496857[/snapback] and? do you know who appoints these federal judges? and do you know why they are there for the length of time they are there? 496865[/snapback] Why do you leave so much space b/w posts? Either way i have a political science degree (unfortunately) I do know about the judicial system. however, you dodged the issue very well. That the president is voted in BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE does not justify the fact that his lifetime appointees are going around making laws (policy). thats the job of legislation. The judicial branch's job is to interpret laws not create them. A law made by state should not deemed unconstituional by a court, b/c a the constitution cannot be unconstitutional, which is why they are trying to pass a constitutioanl amendment banning gay marriage. However, freedom requires will of the majority, and il accept the fact that judges are there to protect the leaset protected, but there rulings should NOT have the force of law for all scenarios that is an error in the interpretation of the vague constituional powers given to the courts. 496875[/snapback] Its the Das style..... And I'm trying to learn how to be a politican Why shouldnt a law handed down by a state be unconstitutional? What if it goes against something stated in the federal laws, therefore if federal courts deemed that said state law goes against federal law...then it should be unconstitutional.... I am not sure how it would work...because I am no lawyer and all...my speciality remains in business and history....but what happens if on the federal level...laws are created that directly go against a state law...wouldnt said state law become unconstitional? what i'm thinking is that in the issue of gay marriage...you are posing the same questions given about interracial marriage...hence why they have been brought up.... you are inherently denying people rights that are afforded others....based solely on sexual orientation. the polygamy debate is null and void...because I believe on the federal level it was concluded that you can only legally be married to one person at a time.....therefore negating the polygamy debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 see in texas..... all judges are put in power by the people. so you see.....at least here in texas.....that arguement holds a hell of a lot of weight...because you can just vote OUT a judge if they dont do what is the will of the people. 496856[/snapback] but remember that county judges and state judges and such can be easily overruled by federal appellate decisions 496857[/snapback] and? do you know who appoints these federal judges? and do you know why they are there for the length of time they are there? 496865[/snapback] Why do you leave so much space b/w posts? Either way i have a political science degree (unfortunately) I do know about the judicial system. however, you dodged the issue very well. That the president is voted in BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE does not justify the fact that his lifetime appointees are going around making laws (policy). thats the job of legislation. The judicial branch's job is to interpret laws not create them. A law made by state should not deemed unconstituional by a court, b/c a the constitution cannot be unconstitutional, which is why they are trying to pass a constitutioanl amendment banning gay marriage. However, freedom requires will of the majority, and il accept the fact that judges are there to protect the leaset protected, but there rulings should NOT have the force of law for all scenarios that is an error in the interpretation of the vague constituional powers given to the courts. 496875[/snapback] Its the Das style..... And I'm trying to learn how to be a politican Why shouldnt a law handed down by a state be unconstitutional? What if it goes against something stated in the federal laws, therefore if federal courts deemed that said state law goes against federal law...then it should be unconstitutional.... I am not sure how it would work...because I am no lawyer and all...my speciality remains in business and history....but what happens if on the federal level...laws are created that directly go against a state law...wouldnt said state law become unconstitional? what i'm thinking is that in the issue of gay marriage...you are posing the same questions given about interracial marriage...hence why they have been brought up.... you are inherently denying people rights that are afforded others....based solely on sexual orientation. the polygamy debate is null and void...because I believe on the federal level it was concluded that you can only legally be married to one person at a time.....therefore negating the polygamy debate. 496945[/snapback] i actually threw a curveball in my argument. First of all f_m the courts are a necessary part of our functioning govt. Some issues should not be for the public to decide b/c they arent aware of certain procedures of policing for example, and due process is a court related issue anyway. However, I believe that no federal law or judicial policy should allow gay marriage. Laws against it should be voted on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 see in texas..... all judges are put in power by the people. so you see.....at least here in texas.....that arguement holds a hell of a lot of weight...because you can just vote OUT a judge if they dont do what is the will of the people. 496856[/snapback] but remember that county judges and state judges and such can be easily overruled by federal appellate decisions 496857[/snapback] and? do you know who appoints these federal judges? and do you know why they are there for the length of time they are there? 496865[/snapback] Why do you leave so much space b/w posts? Either way i have a political science degree (unfortunately) I do know about the judicial system. however, you dodged the issue very well. That the president is voted in BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE does not justify the fact that his lifetime appointees are going around making laws (policy). thats the job of legislation. The judicial branch's job is to interpret laws not create them. A law made by state should not deemed unconstituional by a court, b/c a the constitution cannot be unconstitutional, which is why they are trying to pass a constitutioanl amendment banning gay marriage. However, freedom requires will of the majority, and il accept the fact that judges are there to protect the leaset protected, but there rulings should NOT have the force of law for all scenarios that is an error in the interpretation of the vague constituional powers given to the courts. 496875[/snapback] Its the Das style..... And I'm trying to learn how to be a politican Why shouldnt a law handed down by a state be unconstitutional? What if it goes against something stated in the federal laws, therefore if federal courts deemed that said state law goes against federal law...then it should be unconstitutional.... I am not sure how it would work...because I am no lawyer and all...my speciality remains in business and history....but what happens if on the federal level...laws are created that directly go against a state law...wouldnt said state law become unconstitional? what i'm thinking is that in the issue of gay marriage...you are posing the same questions given about interracial marriage...hence why they have been brought up.... you are inherently denying people rights that are afforded others....based solely on sexual orientation. the polygamy debate is null and void...because I believe on the federal level it was concluded that you can only legally be married to one person at a time.....therefore negating the polygamy debate. 496945[/snapback] i actually threw a curveball in my argument. First of all f_m the courts are a necessary part of our functioning govt. Some issues should not be for the public to decide b/c they arent aware of certain procedures of policing for example, and due process is a court related issue anyway. However, I believe that no federal law or judicial policy should allow gay marriage. Laws against it should be voted on. 496959[/snapback] If a matter is not specifically addressed anywhere..... What is the tradition for said issue. Like say for example...nowhere does the federal constution mention gay marriage..so it becomes a state issue... what if the state also doesnt address it in anyway... i forget how it works.... and why not vote on allowing gay marriage? And why shouldnt any federal law or judicial policy allow gay marriage...it allows heterosexual marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying_Mollusk Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 i actually threw a curveball in my argument. First of all f_m the courts are a necessary part of our functioning govt. Some issues should not be for the public to decide b/c they arent aware of certain procedures of policing for example, and due process is a court related issue anyway. However, I believe that no federal law or judicial policy should allow gay marriage. Laws against it should be voted on So for you there are appropriate times for courts to legislate? How are courts legislating with gay marriage when they are basing their arguments on equal protection and due process issues? With this issue there is a legal foundation to argue from. How can you argue no extension for gay marriage but then argue its ok to base exceptions to the 4th amendent on policy considerations, which have no legal foundations? As you yourself said, courts interepret the law. What law are they interpreting that says its ok to make exceptions to the 4th amendment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 i actually threw a curveball in my argument. First of all f_m the courts are a necessary part of our functioning govt. Some issues should not be for the public to decide b/c they arent aware of certain procedures of policing for example, and due process is a court related issue anyway. However, I believe that no federal law or judicial policy should allow gay marriage. Laws against it should be voted on So for you there are appropriate times for courts to legislate? How are courts legislating with gay marriage when they are basing their arguments on equal protection and due process issues? With this issue there is a legal foundation to argue from. How can you argue no extension for gay marriage but then argue its ok to base exceptions to the 4th amendent on policy considerations, which have no legal foundations? As you yourself said, courts interepret the law. What law are they interpreting that says its ok to make exceptions to the 4th amendment? 497026[/snapback] The problem with the gay marriage issue is that it is being argued on equal protection terms in the federal stage and it SHOULD NOT, it should fall under the forgotten amendment. Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.