[bethere]

Originally Posted by buckeyedan

I agree...
as some point you will hope groups like this will stop keeping their own groups down for their own purpose
if there is equality those folks have no power... do you think their goal is equality or their own power?
you are right... their own power - which requires them to keep their own group down




1960s... 14th amendment... sigh... history wasn't your strong subject was it
I mean pick up a book and read it and maybe you wouldn't make such flat false statements?
not that you care about truth...

what I said was fact... documented an presented
what you said was nonsense and completely false...

so yea... if truth is not an issue you are making a fine arguement... sigh



probably...
my fear is that the more the court rules in these matters that they then can't do anything about
the more folks like Obama just ignor laws
the more you wil have folks realize the Supreme Courts oppinion on laws is no more meaningful constitutionally that your's or mine... they have no power to enfore their oppinion unless the other branches just go along

again... beating the dead horse
the founders punted on two issues they could not agree on: Slavery and Judicial Review

both will likly lead to civil wars to reshape how we are governed
you simply can't leave major issues like that dividing a nation unsolved when you create a government

we punted on state's rights more than anything. that was the stumbling block in philadelphia. it was also why they were there in the first place as the articles of confederation were all about state's rights and the articles failed miserably.

judicial review wasn't an issue until 1803 when it was created by judge marshall out of whole cloth.

btw if you knew someone who was in the ohio legislature in the last decade you'd already know that ohio didn't ratify the 14th amendment until 2003. in spite of that you will have to show me where is said it was ratified in the 1960's. i'll wait for your retraction...

[bethere]

Originally Posted by east_ohio

This has to rank as my favorite post reply of all time. How accurate and how can anyone deny this truth.

let me help you.

1--i deny it;
2--it isn't true;
3--have a special day.

[majorspark]

Originally Posted by bethere

we punted on state's rights more than anything.

We nailed it down constitutionally through the amendment process. Not by judicial fiat. 10th amendment US constitution...."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."

Originally Posted by bethere

judicial review wasn't an issue until 1803 when it was created by judge marshall out of whole cloth.

Historically inaccurate. The concept was well known and debated publicly during the formation of the constitution. Read the anti-federalist papers. They feared it and cautioned that the constitution contained language that would allow it.

"Brutis" 1788: 3d. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have showed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution; and that, not only according to the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp78-79.html

Regardless the judicial branch ruled it had the power and the legislative and executive branches mounted no major challenge and to this day adhere to the power of review claimed by the judiciary. Each branch holds the power to submit and also to challenge.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by majorspark

We nailed it down constitutionally through the amendment process. Not by judicial fiat. 10th amendment US constitution...."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."

you can't really talk about #10 without noting #9:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

MY, THAT COMPLICATES MATTERS, HUH?

tell me you've heard of the compromise... i'll wait while ya google.

[majorspark]

Originally Posted by bethere

you can't really talk about #10 without noting #9:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'.

The 10th leaves all powers not specifically enumerated by the constitution to the federal government in the hands of the states and the people (local government). It gives mayor Bloomberg and his city council the power to ban certain beverages of a specific size within their local jurisdiction if they so choose. The feds possess no such power.

As for the 9th its purpose is to proclaim that the peoples rights are unlimited. The argument against enumerating rights was that the central government would seek to limit them to just those enumerated rights. That was the fear. The 9th assured the feds did not have the authority to limit them in any way. The states and the people were given the authority.

In other words the enumerated right of the individual to possess arms for protection is no less than the non enumerated right of the individual to possess health insurance for personal protection.

Government that protects your rights is the guarantee the founders envisioned. Liberty. Government that provides for your rights. Dependency.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by majorspark

The 10th leaves all powers not specifically enumerated by the constitution to the federal government in the hands of the states and the people (local government). It gives mayor Bloomberg and his city council the power to ban certain beverages of a specific size within their local jurisdiction if they so choose. The feds possess no such power.

As for the 9th its purpose is to proclaim that the peoples rights are unlimited. The argument against enumerating rights was that the central government would seek to limit them to just those enumerated rights. That was the fear. The 9th assured the feds did not have the authority to limit them in any way. The states and the people were given the authority.

In other words the enumerated right of the individual to possess arms for protection is no less than the non enumerated right of the individual to possess health insurance for personal protection.

Government that protects your rights is the guarantee the founders envisioned. Liberty. Government that provides for your rights. Dependency.

it says some of those things. you are correct. but it is also a balance to the tenth amendment and the final obstacle to passage of the constitution. antis wouldn't do it without the bill. feds wouldn't do the bill without the tenth amendment. antis wouldn't do that without the ninth.

committees are like that.

our early history is replete such compromises between the north and the south to maintain the union. consider the missouri compromise, or the compromise of 1950 as fine examples.

here's the description to a fine masters thesis by gary garrison @ miami in oxford... and then a link in case you want to obtain the real thing through ohiolink (a very cool resource). or you can ask any number of living members of the bar on this forum.

btw.. historians won't pass by making stuff up until they are going for at least their doctorate.


This thesis examines the Ninth Amendment as a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists on two founding era discourses. The first discourse concerned rights and how to protect them. Anti-Federalists wanted a bill of rights included in the Constitution whereas Federalists feared such a bill would be incomplete and allow future tyrants to argue that rights not expressly enumerated therein were not to have Constitutional protection. The second discourse concerned the role of democracy in the new republic. Federalists were alarmed by state legislation which violated minority rights and Anti-Federalists were equally concerned that a national government would violate minority rights at the state level. This Thesis argues that the Ninth Amendment resolved these discourses by specifying that there are rights outside the Constitution which merit legal protection and by empowering the federal courts to strike down democratically passed legislation which violated minority rights.

http://drc.ohiolink.edu/handle/2374.OX/19154