Investor's Business Daily calls for Pelosi's resignation - Page 4

WickedLou9 · 07-21-2008, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

That very link even shows that we are not a common law country.
"The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana (which is based on the French civil code), the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise."

We use common law when an issue has not been addressed by a statute.

No. Just no. I don't want to be condescending here. It's clear you are a smart guy well versed in history and the constitution, but it's also clear you have never taken even an intro level law course. What you just cited was the very definition of what a common law country is.
There is no federal law, no statute saying that interacial marriages can not be banned. There is no federal law saying that schools can not be segregated. What there is, is case law precedant. We apply the constitution, the bill of rights, existing laws and statues, along with other precedant setting cases to come to a legal decision. These cases, in effect, become law. They have the force of law, even though there is no written legal statute.

Angus_Aboot · 07-21-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Wow that is so wrong...It would of been more accurate if you said we are a mix..local laws tend to be statutory, State and Federal is a mix of statutory and common law. We inherited our system from the British, another common law country.

You going to argue Constitutional law and say Common Law has no place or is pointless...that is profoundly ignorant, especially after the attitude you gave Lou.

I never once said common law has no place. Nor did I say the US is not a mixed country. But your assertion that the US has a mixed legal system is correct. To call the US system common law is flat out incorrect and you know it. The very fact that Louisiana exists shows that.
Furthermore, you should know that, one of the reasons for the Constitution and the American war for Independence was to escape the British system.

Angus_Aboot · 07-21-2008, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

No. Just no. I don't want to be condescending here. It's clear you are a smart guy well versed in history and the constitution, but it's also clear you have never taken even an intro level law course. What you just cited was the very definition of what a common law country is.

What I just cited showed that the U.S. is a mixed country
"In all states except Louisiana"

Note: I've taken one too many law classes, I actually have a minor in pre-law within political science. Although, I'll admit it was a waste.

WickedLou9 · 07-21-2008, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

What I just cited showed that the U.S. is a mixed country
"In all states except Louisiana"

Note: I've taken one too many law classes, I was actually have a minor in pre-law within political science. Although, I'll admit it was a waste.

I don't believe you. Anyone who has taken even an intro level law course would have known that we are a common law country. The fact that Louisianna uses a different system doesn't effect the federal government. We are a common law country at the federal level.

Angus_Aboot · 07-21-2008, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't believe you. Anyone who has taken even an intro level law course would have known that we are a common law country. The fact that Louisianna uses a different system doesn't effect the federal government. We are a common law country at the federal level.

Meh. Louisiana (and California and New York to an extent), being part of the country, show that the US is not a common law country. If you meant at the federal level you should have said so previously.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There is no federal law, no statute saying that interacial marriages can not be banned. There is no federal law saying that schools can not be segregated. What there is, is case law precedant. We apply the constitution, the bill of rights, existing laws and statues, along with other precedant setting cases to come to a legal decision. These cases, in effect, become law. They have the force of law, even though there is no written legal statute.

You doubt my legal education?
Have you ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Furthermore, your assumption that "we apply the Constitution" isn't always so.

WickedLou9 · 07-21-2008, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Meh. Louisiana (and California and New York to an extent), being part of the country, show that the US is not a common law country. If you meant at the federal level you should have said so previously.

You doubt my legal education?
Have you ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Furthermore, your assumption that "we apply the Constitution" isn't always so.

This really isn't going anywhere. We can go back and forth and give each other cute little tests and nothing will be resolved. The source of this arguement was, as I stated previously, my assertion there was a difference between gay marriage and drilling for oil. One is federal and one is purely a states issue. I think I have made at least a prima facia case for gay marriage being a civil rights issue and as such, a federal issue. Whether or not you ultimately agree with me is up to you, but I would hope that you would atleast agree that a case can be made. In fact I would probably wager money that we will see this very case argued before the supreme court within our lifetimes. Some state will pass a law banning gay marriage, just like virginia banned interracial marriage. The law will be challanged in federal court on the grounds that it violates both the 14th and the civil rights act. The state will no doubt defend the law based on many of the arguements that you have made. Who ultimately wins will remain to be seen, but as for the simple question of "can the case be made?", it's fairly obvious.

Now if you want to talk about the off-shore drilling issue I'm up for that but I suspect that you might agree with me that it should be a states rights issue.

7960 · 07-21-2008, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

You doubt my legal education?
Have you ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

exactly where were you going with this? if you were trying to make a point, you didn't. explain please.

Angus_Aboot · 07-21-2008, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

This really isn't going anywhere. We can go back and forth and give each other cute little tests and nothing will be resolved. The source of this arguement was, as I stated previously, my assertion there was a difference between gay marriage and drilling for oil. One is federal and one is purely a states issue. I think I have made at least a prima facia case for gay marriage being a civil rights issue and as such, a federal issue. Whether or not you ultimately agree with me is up to you, but I would hope that you would atleast agree that a case can be made. In fact I would probably wager money that we will see this very case argued before the supreme court within our lifetimes. Some state will pass a law banning gay marriage, just like virginia banned interracial marriage. The law will be challanged in federal court on the grounds that it violates both the 14th and the civil rights act. The state will no doubt defend the law based on many of the arguements that you have made. Who ultimately wins will remain to be seen, but as for the simple question of "can the case be made?", it's fairly obvious.

I wholeheartedly agree that the case "can be made," I don't think I ever said that it cannot. I focused more on whether the case, based on many of the arguments you've made, is Constitutional in nature. I've seen very little evidence of it being a federal issue *in a strict Constitutional sense* you seem to base it on more modern court precedents (which are not necessarily Constitutional). You even seemed to admit that America does not follow the Constitution the way it used to.

One a side note, If you feel that modern court rulings are what really counts, where do you stand on DOMA?
It clearly states that a marriage between homosexuals does NOT have to be acknowledged. And defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Being that it is far more modern than the Civil Rights Act and any of the court cases you mentioned and that you yourself said that you are arguing "what is true now" (as opposed to me arguing the way I think it should be) shouldn't you be against it? I mean, its clearly "true now"

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Now if you want to talk about the off-shore drilling issue I'm up for that but I suspect that you might agree with me that it should be a states rights issue.

I agree, if we are going strictly by the U.S. Constitution, however if we are going to go by how things are "now" then I see little difference. The U.S. federal government has far more reach, power and authority than it used to (Constitutional or not). One could easily argue that offshore drilling is a federal issue by (mis)interpreting the Commerce Clause, to allow congress to regulate the oil.

Angus_Aboot · 07-21-2008, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

exactly where were you going with this? if you were trying to make a point, you didn't. explain please.

Sure, in our discussion, Lou said something along the lines of "There is no federal law saying that schools can not be segregated." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically outlawed such practice.

WickedLou9 · 07-21-2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Sure, in our discussion, Lou said something along the lines of "There is no federal law saying that schools can not be segregated." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically outlawed such practice.

I'll give that to you, but you understand my point. There are alot of "laws" in this country that you won't find in any book, they exist only as case law precedent. When the Napster case was tried, there was no law that really applied to the situation. So they used the Sony Betamax case along with copyright law to make a decision. That decision now has the force of law.

WickedLou9 · 07-21-2008, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

I wholeheartedly agree that the case "can be made," I don't think I ever said that it cannot. I focused more on whether the case, based on many of the arguments you've made, is Constitutional in nature. I've seen very little evidence of it being a federal issue *in a strict Constitutional sense* you seem to base it on more modern court precedents (which are not necessarily Constitutional). You even seemed to admit that America does not follow the Constitution the way it used to.

One a side note, If you feel that modern court rulings are what really counts, where do you stand on DOMA?
It clearly states that a marriage between homosexuals does NOT have to be acknowledged. And defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Being that it is far more modern than the Civil Rights Act and any of the court cases you mentioned and that you yourself said that you are arguing "what is true now" (as opposed to me arguing the way I think it should be) shouldn't you be against it? I mean, its clearly "true now"

I agree, if we are going strictly by the U.S. Constitution, however if we are going to go by how things are "now" then I see little difference. The U.S. federal government has far more reach, power and authority than it used to (Constitutional or not). One could easily argue that offshore drilling is a federal issue by (mis)interpreting the Commerce Clause, to allow congress to regulate the oil.

I am against the DOMA and I think, if such a bill were to be passed, that it would be challenged and found unconstitutional. the federal government has, from time to time, passed laws that violate the constitution. They have been called on it a few times and the laws have been thrown out. For example, they passed a federal violence against women act back in 1994. IN 200o that law was challenged and part of the acts were declared unconstitutional and they were repealed.
Violence Against Women Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that portions of VAWA were unconstitutional because, in enacting the law, Congress exceeded its authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - The Commerce Clause.

I am fairly certain that if a defense of marriage act were to pass in congress, it would find a similar fate.

Angus_Aboot · 07-22-2008, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I am against the DOMA and I think, if such a bill were to be passed, that it would be challenged and found unconstitutional. the federal government has, from time to time, passed laws that violate the constitution. They have been called on it a few times and the laws have been thrown out. For example, they passed a federal violence against women act back in 1994. IN 200o that law was challenged and part of the acts were declared unconstitutional and they were repealed.
Violence Against Women Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am fairly certain that if a defense of marriage act were to pass in congress, it would find a similar fate.

What? DOMA passed Congress back in 1996. Regardless, if it was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court would you still defend it, with it being the modern way and all?

"the federal government has, from time to time, passed laws that violate the constitution."

You got that right.

WickedLou9 · 07-22-2008, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

What? DOMA passed Congress back in 1996. Regardless, if it was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court would you still defend it, with it being the modern way and all?

"the federal government has, from time to time, passed laws that violate the constitution." You got that right.

Hmm. I actually didn't know that. I know they have been talking about passing additional legislation as well, I'm not sure why... Oh yeah it's an election year. It looks like the DOMA has been challenged in court but so far the supreme court has decided not to hear any of the cases. I guess we'll have to wait and see.