our responsibility to the constitution - Page 3

Joe_Cool · 06-15-2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

College Block v. Atlantic Richfield

Imperial Colliery v. Fout

Woodside Village Condo Assoc. v. Jahren

Oh, my bad. When you said "US Law", I thought you meant "US Law".

DosEquis · 06-15-2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

this has been covered in the thread.

I see that you mentioned Thomas Jefferson, how he was a stickler for following the constitution, then later they used an authorization for force. Could it just possibly be that when Mr. Jefferson had the power of presidency that he changed his view a little? You know what they say about power corrupting.

Publius · 06-15-2007, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I see that you mentioned Thomas Jefferson, how he was a stickler for following the constitution, then later they used an authorization for force. Could it just possibly be that when Mr. Jefferson had the power of presidency that he changed his view a little? You know what they say about power corrupting.

It is true that he became slightly more open in his interpretation of the Constitution (for example, the Constitution did not specifically grant Congress the ability to BUY terrority), but he was still EXTREMELY narrow in his interpretation of the Constitution.

As much as I'm not a big fan of Jefferson, he was fairly consistent politically in his strict adherence to a narrow interpretation.

Joe_Cool · 06-15-2007, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I see that you mentioned Thomas Jefferson, how he was a stickler for following the constitution, then later they used an authorization for force. Could it just possibly be that when Mr. Jefferson had the power of presidency that he changed his view a little? You know what they say about power corrupting.

Well then, we're back to this:

Show me where the Constitution says "Military force shall not be used without a formal declaration of war".

DosEquis · 06-15-2007, 04:00 PM

Show me in the constitution where it says that the 2nd amendment also includes the right to assault weapons.

I can play that too.

Thorgrim · 06-15-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Oh, my bad. When you said "US Law", I thought you meant "US Law".

That is US law...

Joe_Cool · 06-15-2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That is US law...

No, those are court decisions. Only Congress makes US Law. Not courts.

Joe_Cool · 06-15-2007, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Show me in the constitution where it says that the 2nd amendment also includes the right to assault weapons.

I can play that too.

Well, since "assault weapons" ARE arms...

Nice try. If you don't think Congress has the power to authorize military force without a formal declaration of war, that's fine. Just quote the requirement.

Thorgrim · 06-15-2007, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

No, those are court decisions. Only Congress makes US Law. Not courts.

you have to be kidding me

Talk to the most conservative/libertarian/whatever lawyer you want, and repeat what you just said

It's called common law and case law, and it's equal (sometimes superior) to state and federal law, and this is what the congress and people have decided over the past 200+ years

If it wasn't for that system, our entire legislative system would collapse...do you have any idea how much contract/tort/property law expands over time...could you imagine if state legislatures and congress had to deal with every issue from every case everytime something changes?

Seriously, go to a jurisdiction where the state and congress hasn't adopted provisions from basic habibility requirements, and ignore what the state court says and do whatever you want that isn't directly addressed by state law...

and while you're in prison you can go "But I didn't break any laws, they were just court decisions!!!"

imind · 06-15-2007, 06:24 PM

daft thread

Joe_Cool · 06-15-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

you have to be kidding me

Talk to the most conservative/libertarian/whatever lawyer you want, and repeat what you just said

It's called common law and case law, and it's equal (sometimes superior) to state and federal law, and this is what the congress and people have decided over the past 200+ years

If it wasn't for that system, our entire legislative system would collapse...do you have any idea how much contract/tort/property law expands over time...could you imagine if state legislatures and congress had to deal with every issue from every case everytime something changes?

Seriously, go to a jurisdiction where the state and congress hasn't adopted provisions from basic habibility requirements, and ignore what the state court says and do whatever you want that isn't directly addressed by state law...

and while you're in prison you can go "But I didn't break any laws, they were just court decisions!!!"

Courts do not make laws. They only apply existing law to specific circumstances. And precedents are only guidelines for interpreting existing law within certain constraints. You can't be arrested for violating "case law".

Thorgrim · 06-15-2007, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Courts do not make laws. They only apply existing law to specific circumstances. And precedents are only guidelines for interpreting existing law within certain constraints. You can't be arrested for violating "case law".

Seriously, go to wikipedia, check out common law...case law...these are things not passed or were not passed by legislatures for decades/centuries, and in almost everywhere have the FORCE OF LAW

There is a reason it's called Case LAW

Implied warranty of habitability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, you break that CASE LAW in a lot of jurisdiction's that haven't had the legislature codify it (simply because it's too complicated and dynamic), and you'll get yourself arrested