Thread: Ron Paul DROPS OUT

[QUOTE=AbsoluteVoluntarist;1061 216865]The are only irrelevant in the the sense that they have no direct influence on the workings of the state, just like everything else we do. They are not ethically irrelevant. [/quotye]

That is a matter of opinion.

I don't want anyone to have any political power. But my issue with "judicial review" is not that it grants the Supreme Court the power to overturn Congressional legislation. 99% of legislation is bad and unjust, so the more people with a veto power over it, the merrier. My problem is opposite: the idea that if the Supreme Court does not overturn the legislation, it's constitutional and the debate is over.

You can extol the wonders of anarchy in another thread if you want.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

You can extol the wonders of anarchy in another thread if you want.

You have asked why I oppose judicial review under its current definition, and I told you. You are not reading what I'm writing. I agree the courts should be allowed to determine whether or not they considers legislation constitutional or not. The problem is the idea that it should be the final word on the subject.

This has implications for such issues as state and jury nullification. You said you don't want Congress to have the final word on everything, and I agree. But by proposing that the courts should be the only monopolistic check (unless an amendment is passed--by Congress!), you effectively eliminate all other possible checks.

The preferable method would be for the courts to determine whether they personally will treat the law as constitutional or not. If they don't, they simply won't enforce it, effectively nullifying it.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

You have asked why I oppose judicial review under its current definition, and I told you. You are not reading what I'm writing. I agree the courts should be allowed to determine whether or not they considers legislation constitutional or not. The problem is the idea that it should be the final word on the subject.

This has implications for such issues as state and jury nullification. You said you don't want Congress to have the final word on everything, and I agree. But by proposing that the courts should be the only monopolistic check (unless an amendment is passed--by Congress!), you effectively eliminate all other possible checks.

The preferable method would be for the courts to determine whether they personally will treat the law as constitutional or not. If they don't, they simply won't enforce it, effectively nullifying it.

The Courts do not have final say. It can be overturned by the Congress through Amendments. This is part of our checks and balances.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

You have asked why I oppose judicial review under its current definition, and I told you.

Where did I ask you any such thing?

You are not reading what I'm writing. I agree the courts should be allowed to determine whether or not they considers legislation constitutional or not. The problem is the idea that it should be the final word on the subject.

OK, so you have no problem with the Supreme Court having the power to review laws, you're just (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about it for some reason you have not identified.

Who says they have the final word on the subject?

This has implications for such issues as state and jury nullification. You said you don't want Congress to have the final word on everything, and I agree. But by proposing that the courts should be the only monopolistic check (unless an amendment is passed--by Congress!), you effectively eliminate all other possible checks.

Where on earth did I propose any such thing?

The preferable method would be for the courts to determine whether they personally will treat the law as constitutional or not. If they don't, they simply won't enforce it, effectively nullifying it.

The Courts do not enforce the law, or play a very minor role in it. Are you saying they should?

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

The Courts do not have final say. It can be overturned by the Congress through Amendments. This is part of our checks and balances.

That is right, or by the states through amendment, or by Congress changing the law depending on the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Trinnity

How are you gonna feel if Barky loses this fall?
His winning isn't a lock, you know.
You do know that, don't you?

There are no guarantees in this world except death and taxes.

When you say "Barky" I'm assuming its slang for our President; if that's true and he loses the election, then so be it. Yes it would be disappointing but you know what? Well if he wins, we'll live with Romney for 4 years and start over again.

As many conservatives in here are so fond of saying, Romney is nothing more then a RINO so that translates into mirror of Obama, so not much would change either way. But I think that President Obama has an excellent chance for re election and I intend to support him. At least I know what I'm dealing with.

Read that over your dinner.

Originally Posted by gamewell45

There are no guarantees in this world except death and taxes.

When you say "Barky" I'm assuming its slang for our President; if that's true and he loses the election, then so be it. Yes it would be disappointing but you know what? Well if he wins, we'll live with Romney for 4 years and start over again.

As many conservatives in here are so fond of saying, Romney is nothing more then a RINO so that translates into mirror of Obama, so not much would change either way. But I think that President Obama has an excellent chance for re election and I intend to support him. At least I know what I'm dealing with.

Read that over your dinner.

Romney will win and tow the party line. The economy will improve slightly and then comes Hillary in 2016 who will be unbeatable. If I were a democrat I would abandon Obama and wait for her.

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

Romney will win and tow the party line. The economy will improve slightly and then comes Hillary in 2016 who will be unbeatable. If I were a democrat I would abandon Obama and wait for her.

That could all change if Paul Ryan runs.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

That could all change if Paul Ryan runs.

Paul is out. That's not even debatable now. Ryan also would never side with Paul so that ticket is bogus.

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

Romney will win and tow the party line. The economy will improve slightly and then comes Hillary in 2016 who will be unbeatable. If I were a democrat I would abandon Obama and wait for her.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, we shall see. We've got 7 months until election and the mainstream media hasn't even started its attack on Romney. This will be one exciting summer for sure.