• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Therefore every expansion of federal power with or without basis in existing law is true to the spirit of the framers. QED. #FeelTheBern
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Are you dumb? The constitution was a huge expansion of federal power which had no basis in existing law.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It set up the specifics for how the majority should rule within various areas of federal government.
 
Haha. I get it. This is where "KNOWell" is astonishingly ignorant on a basic civics topic.

How on earth could the establishment of a central federal government not be a huge expansion of federal power?
 
PhDeac said:
Haha. I get it. This is where "KNOWell" is astonishingly ignorant on a basic civics topic.

How on earth could the establishment of a central federal government not be a huge expansion of federal power?
Click to expand...

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Obviously creating a government is an "expansion of powers" for that government. If you assume that a nation will need to be governed, then a government with checks and balances and limitations on that power is much less expansive than an authoritarian king or dictator that almost all other countries had in place.

Would it kill you to occasionally try and understand what the other guy is trying to say or must everything be contentious with you?
 
Last edited:
Expansion typically implies a comparison to a previous state of being not to something completely different.

Use the proper words and I'll better understand your point.
 
knowell said:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Obviously creating a government is an "expanse of powers" for that government. If you assume that a nation will need to be governed, then a government with checks and balances and limitations on that power is much less expansive than an authoritarian king or dictator that almost all other countries had in place.

Would it kill you to occasionally try and understand what the other guy is trying to say or must everything be contentious with you?
Click to expand...

It is much more expansive than the government that preceded it which was governed by the Articles of Confederation. It's not like we just went straight from King to Constitution.
 
Yes. It was the proper term for the proper understanding of the Constitution, not for knowell's point that the Constitution limited federal power.
 
PhDeac said:
Yes. It was the proper term for the proper understanding of the Constitution, not for knowell's point that the Constitution limited federal power.
Click to expand...

Well it does limit federal power. The Constitution is all about putting limits on federal power. It lists the only things that the federal government is allowed to do and reserves everything else to the states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
The U.S. Supreme Court Goes to Ferguson

The Supreme Court disagreed by a 5-4 vote. Collecting the DNA of defendants upon arrest, argued Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion, is no different than photographing and fingerprinting them. “The legitimate government interest served by the Maryland DNA Collection Act is one that is well established: the need for law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify the persons and possessions they must take into custody,” he explained. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito, agreed.
...

Scalia’s dissent thoroughly gutted the majority’s logic. Central to Kennedy’s argument was the assertion that collecting King’s DNA helped identify him, thereby avoiding “inordinate risks for facility staff” or “existing detainee populations.” Scalia countered by quoting the statute itself, which prohibited testing arrestee DNA before the first arraignment date. Moreover, he asked, “Does the Court really believe that Maryland did not know whom it was arraigning?”
Click to expand...

Are Junebug or any of our lawyers around to help me understand this? Can police take a DNA swab anytime they arrest someone, or are their limitations? And can they keep the DNA results in their records? I feel like police dramas have been lying to me.
 
Supreme Court to examine racial divide in jury selection

It has been almost three decades since the Supreme Court in a case called Batson v. Kentucky ruled that it was unconstitutional to strike jurors because of their race.

But almost no one thinks the problem has been eliminated. Prosecutors and defense attorneys need only find a benign reason for dismissal: a failure to maintain eye contact and an age too close to the defendant’s were among those accepted in the Georgia case.

Studies and experience have concluded that only the most incompetent lawyer will fail to come up with a justification that a judge can accept.
Click to expand...
 
MysteryMen said:
Well it does limit federal power. The Constitution is all about putting limits on federal power. It lists the only things that the federal government is allowed to do and reserves everything else to the states.
Click to expand...

There really isn't another honest reading of it.
 
"age too close to the defendant’s were among those accepted in the Georgia case."

peer[SUP]2[/SUP]
pir/
noun
noun: peer; plural noun: peers

2.
a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.
 
Yeah depends state by state and sometimes even case by case I believe. Most I see for trials here are six peremptory.
 
Check out the "postman gambit" as a pretext for striking black jurors.
 
jhmd2000 said:
There really isn't another honest reading of it.
Click to expand...

Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management.
Click to expand...

Yeah Fuck that lying SOB Hamilton.

Arguing that the Constitution was anything but a broad expansion of federal power is nonsense. You can argue about where the limits of that expansion were, but denying that an expansion took place is historically inaccurate. The anti-federalists lost (a continuing theme in American History), the only question is by how much.
 
Junebug said:
The Constitution does not guarantee that criminal defendants will be tried by a "jury of their peers." It guarantees that the pool from which the jury is selected will be US citizens and, at issue in the SCOTUS case, that members of the pool won't be struck for reasons that violate the equal protection clause, like the race or sex of the juror.

You do not have a constitutional right to a "jury of your peers" as you are defining the word "peer." The "jury of their peers" language comes from the Magna Carta, which used that language to forbid the practice of trial by the king.
Click to expand...

Yeah and the Magna Carta has no relevance in determining what was meant by the term "impartial jury" in the 6th Amendment. #historyandtradition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top