Hillary Clinton gets it!

[Powertone]

And by the way... what debate? Yelling "Marxist!", "Death Panels!", "Chicago machine!", "Birth Certificate!", "ACOOOORN!!" at the top of one's lungs until anyone who tries to reason with them gives up and goes home, is not debate, but a rally.Rallies are fine, but there's a time and a place. Sadly, the whole discourse from the right, from raly rigns to senators, is an endless talking point stacked rally.

There's no debate.

here's calm reasoned debate from back in the day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYp4jbCs2J0&feature=fvw

 

[RobDownSouth]

Konstitutional Skolar Karen

Untrue.

The Supreme Court has the final say as to all issues of Constitutionality. Everybody from Small Claims court judges to talk show hosts can opine as to Constitutional issues, but the buck stops at the SCOTUS.

You know nothing about the Constitution, I'm quite sure, yet you are filled with opinions nevertheless. Should you manage to develop some skills in that area, it might freshen up your meaningless ad hominem rants with a few actual facts. Nah, never mind.

Points and laughs at "Karen"
Remember this from December 2009?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=32735409

From post #97 onward...remember how you claimed "only" the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution?

Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Drixx?
Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Pookie?
Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Colonel Hogan?

It seems you're not quite the "Constitutional Scholar" you think you are!

Good times, good times....

 

[Liar]

here's calm reasoned debate from back in the day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYp4jbCs2J0&feature=fvw

Did I ever say there weren't angry yellers around back then?

They were, as I remember, being branded un-American. Or traitors, or terrorist lovers.

Anyhoo, I can't hear what the broad is saying. Is she venting her wishes to water the tree of liberty with Bush's blood?

 

[Powertone]

Points and laughs at "Karen"
Remember this from December 2009?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=32735409

From post #97 onward...remember how you claimed "only" the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution?

Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Drixx?
Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Pookie?
Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Colonel Hogan?

It seems you're not quite the "Constitutional Scholar" you think you are!

Good times, good times....

fuck...shut up

 

[Karen Kraft]

Points and laughs at "Karen"
Remember this from December 2009?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=32735409

From post #97 onward...remember how you claimed "only" the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution?

Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Drixx?
Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Pookie?
Remember how your ignorance of the courts got you bitchslapped by Colonel Hogan?

It seems you're not quite the "Constitutional Scholar" you think you are!

Good times, good times....

They do it all the time. It's their job to interpret the Constitution.

No.

It is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The circuit and district judges take direction from the opinions issued by the Supreme Court and, when they are pretty sure about something, they will cite to a Supreme Court decision and try to apply the law of that cited case to the facts of the case at bar. Under no circumstances do district court judges "interpret" the Constitution.

Next?

================

That was a correct statement of the law.

Now, go fuck Robby some more. Oh wait, there is that restraining order.

You are amazingly stupid, even for a fat boy-fucker.

 

[Karen Kraft]

To: RubDownSow (the fat ignorant pig):

They do it all the time. It's their job to interpret the Constitution.

No.

It is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The circuit and district judges take direction from the opinions issued by the Supreme Court and, when they are pretty sure about something, they will cite to a Supreme Court decision and try to apply the law of that cited case to the facts of the case at bar. Under no circumstances do district court judges "interpret" the Constitution.

LEARN SOMETHING BEFORE YOU POST ON SUBJECTS ABOUT WHICH YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

[Pookie]

No.

It is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The circuit and district judges take direction from the opinions issued by the Supreme Court and, when they are pretty sure about something, they will cite to a Supreme Court decision and try to apply the law of that cited case to the facts of the case at bar. Under no circumstances do district court judges "interpret" the Constitution.

Again ... no.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=32744735&postcount=108

Wrong again.

Read what I read more carefully.

CliffNotes Version:

ONLY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES INTERPRETS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Oh..... and legal analysis is always a matter of semantics. That's precisely the point.

Well ... no.

The role of the Judiciary is to interpret the law. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court gets "the last say" as to the interpretation of the US Constitution.

As to Federal Courts ...

In general, federal courts may decide cases that involve the United States government, the United States Constitution or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments. A case that raises such a "federal question" may be filed in federal court. ...

http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_4_0.html

"Federal question jurisdiction" (referred to above) is a common legal term defined below:

federal question jurisdiction: Jurisdiction given to federal courts in cases involving the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties.

http://www.uscourts.gov/library/internationalbook-fedcts2.pdf

State Courts also interpret the US Constitution. When they do (after exhausting all State appeals), a case then can be appealed to the US Supreme Court to have "the last say".

Areas of Concurrent Jurisdiction for Federal and State Courts
In addition to areas in which the states have regulated on a matter more extensively than the federal government, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts concerning the following points of law:

1. Diversity of Citizenship
In civil cases involving citizens of two or more states in which the dollar amount in question exceeds $75,000, a state court may hear the case if the defendant in the case does not petition to have the case removed to federal court. Furthermore, if a civil case involves two or more citizens of different states but the amount in question does not exceed $75,000, the case must be heard by a state court.

2. Federal Question: Any state court may interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, treaty, etc., if the applicable Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty has direct bearing on a case brought in state court under a state law. However, by interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or treaty, the state is subjecting itself to federal review. This means that after a state supreme court has acted on a case, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it. In such instances, the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned only with reviewing the state court's interpretation of the applicable federal Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty. It does not review any matters of law that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.

http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/fedstate_lessonplan.htm

 

[Karen Kraft]

Once again, you are confusing the application of Constitutional law to the facts of a case. Under no circumstances may any court in the U.S. "interpret" the Constitution; it may only apply existing interpretation (from the SCOTUS) to the facts of a particular case.

All courts attempt to apply the law to the facts of a case. The circuit courts and appellate courts apply what they thing the SCOTUS has said on a particular point of law, but they would never dare "interpret" the Constitution. They may select one SCOTUS decision and apply it to the facts of a case, while a different court may apply a different rule of law to similar facts. It is the resolution of those contradictions that provides the vast majority of the cases heard by the SCOTUS.

Trial courts determine the facts of a case (finding of fact) and apply what the judge thinks is the rule of law governing said fact set (conclusions at law).

The appellate courts then decide whether, under the given set of facts, the correct rules of law were selected by the judge and that those rules were applied correctly in a particular case.

Concurrent jurisdiction has nothing to do with constitutional interpretation. Since 1803, the SCOTUS has reserved to itself jurisdiction with respect to the interpretation of the Constitution.

Having a variety of courts interpret the Constitution would make a mess similar to a Lt.Colonel insisting that his idea of the President's qualifications was as reasonable as that of the Electoral College.

That said, you and I, as free individuals, may opine as to the meanings found in the phrases and clauses of the Constitution. So can talk show hosts, member of Congress, Small Claims court commissioners, etc. However, under the rule of stare decisis, the judges in the courts of the United States and the Several States, are to stand by that which is decided. They are to adere to the rules set out in decided cases which form a precedent from which subsequent interpretations are not to deviate. As life and times progress, decisions are reversed, a new and fresh look is taken. An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).


The stare decisis rule is based on the "assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.)

In common parlance we say that Judge X or Court Y "interpreted" the Constitution to forbid a city to deny a parade permit for Group Z, for example. But in technical terms, they do no such thing. They review prior cases and must apply the rules already set out on the subject. In fact, what they are doing is an exercise in applying established Constitutional precedent, not blazing new trails of "interpretation."

Since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) the job of interpreting laws passed by Congress fell upon the Supreme Court of the United States. Indeed, the main issue of Marbury was whether the Supreme Court of the United States has the power, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute passed by Congress. Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS found that it had that right.

All lower courts must apply the interpretation settled by the Supreme Court, under all circumstances. If they fail to do that, they will be reversed, often without so much as a comment. That's how stare decisis works. Now, once a specific case has exhausted its last appeal to the highest court in a state, for example, the litigants have the right to have the conclusions of law (not the facts) reviewed federally. At that point, the SCOTUS decides whether its prior decisions are being applied correctly by the state court. If it is a matter of first impression (whether Internet communications are protected by the First Amendment, for example), the job of the lower courts is to apply established case law precedent to try to reach an answer. Again, this is a exercise in application, not interpretation. Then, and only then, will the First Amendment be interpreted by the SCOTUS. Judges who take it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution with disregard of the prior opinions of the SCOTUS are likely to find themselves working in traffic court.

Sure, a state court will say that it interprets the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to allow the police to kick down the door if they think terrorist planning is going on behind it. Great. No warrant needed, since terrorists are involved. Then, when the case against the terrorists is dismissed and the evidence confiscated in the raid is excluded forever, a lot of whining ensues about "legal technicalities." Interpretation, absent obedience to stare decisis is error. Courts other than the SCOTUS, therefore, only apply the rules of law to a given situation; they do not "interpret" the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Pookie]

Once again, you are confusing the application of Constitutional law to the facts of a case. Under no circumstances may any court in the U.S. "interpret" the Constitution; it may only apply existing interpretation (from the SCOTUS) to the facts of a particular case.

As I posted in the other thread, those words come straight from the Federal Judiciary's website. Maybe you should take up your concerns with them.

 

[Karen Kraft]

As I posted in the other thread, those words come straight from the Federal Judiciary's website. Maybe you should take up your concerns with them.

I'm familiar with the web site, and I re-read it today.

I'm sorry, but the "interpretation" they are talking about is the selection of previous rulings, not direct fresh interpretation. It's always about citations to previous cases, not opining as to the true meanings of the words and phrases in the document.

 

[Pookie]

I'm familiar with the web site, and I re-read it today.

I'm sorry, but the "interpretation" they are talking about is the selection of previous rulings, not direct fresh interpretation. It's always about citations to previous cases, not opining as to the true meanings of the words and phrases in the document.

You need to re-read it again.

2. Federal Question: Any state court may interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, treaty, etc., if the applicable Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty has direct bearing on a case brought in state court under a state law. However, by interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or treaty, the state is subjecting itself to federal review. This means that after a state supreme court has acted on a case, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it. In such instances, the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned only with reviewing the state court's interpretation of the applicable federal Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty. It does not review any matters of law that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.


The Supreme Court is constantly reviewing State & Federal Courts' interpretations of the US Constitution and application of the Court's previous interpretations. In many cases, they just remain silent and allow the lower courts interpretations to stand.

This is pretty basic stuff, Karen. I don't know if you seriously don't understand it, or you're just being stubborn.

 

[Karen Kraft]

You need to re-read it again.

2. Federal Question: Any state court may interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, treaty, etc., if the applicable Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty has direct bearing on a case brought in state court under a state law. However, by interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or treaty, the state is subjecting itself to federal review. This means that after a state supreme court has acted on a case, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it. In such instances, the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned only with reviewing the state court's interpretation of the applicable federal Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty. It does not review any matters of law that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.


The Supreme Court is constantly reviewing State & Federal Courts' interpretations of the US Constitution and application of the Court's previous interpretations. In many cases, they just remain silent and allow the lower courts interpretations to stand.

This is pretty basic stuff, Karen. I don't know if you seriously don't understand it, or you're just being stubborn.

Neither. We are talking at different angles to each other. I guess the bottom line is this: the only "interpretations" of the Constitution are the ones approved (by opinion or by non-opinion) by the SCOTUS. When these other judges opine with respect to the Constitution, they do so through citation to prior opinions that have been published or allowed by the SCOTUS. Read any First or Fourth Amendment appellate brief and you'll see what I mean.

For example, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wanted to "interpret" the Constitution, what they were actually doing is applying existing law and seeing if it comports with the facts at bar. Notice how they do this:

http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/amicus brief.pdf

 

[Karen Kraft]

You need to re-read it again.

2. Federal Question: Any state court may interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, treaty, etc., if the applicable Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty has direct bearing on a case brought in state court under a state law. However, by interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or treaty, the state is subjecting itself to federal review. This means that after a state supreme court has acted on a case, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it. In such instances, the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned only with reviewing the state court's interpretation of the applicable federal Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty. It does not review any matters of law that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.


The Supreme Court is constantly reviewing State & Federal Courts' interpretations of the US Constitution and application of the Court's previous interpretations. In many cases, they just remain silent and allow the lower courts interpretations to stand.

This is pretty basic stuff, Karen. I don't know if you seriously don't understand it, or you're just being stubborn.

Neither. We are talking at different angles to each other. I guess the bottom line is this: the only "interpretations" of the Constitution are the ones approved (by opinion or by non-opinion) by the SCOTUS. When these other judges opine with respect to the Constitution, they do so through citation to prior opinions that have been published or allowed by the SCOTUS. Read any First or Fourth Amendment appellate brief and you'll see what I mean.

For example, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wanted to "interpret" the Constitution, what they were actually doing is applying existing law and seeing if it comports with the facts at bar. Notice how they do this.

http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/amicus brief.pdf