Discussion: State Rights

[Addendum]

Does the Constitution have legal weight?

The US Constitution and the subsequent amendments are law of the land, as well as the US Code, the rulings by the Supreme Court, laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, laws passed by Congress which over-rule the President's veto, Executive Orders, the Code of Federal Regulations, US Statutes, rulings by the US Court of Appeals, rulings by the US District Courts, and then each State's constitutions, the rulings by each state's supreme court, each state's statutes, each state's regulations, and then municipal law for each city or town in those states, all have legal weight.

The Declaration of Independence had only one purpose: to declare the independence of 13 colonies from Great Britain. Once finished, each former colony worked on their constitutions, and then worked on the Articles of the Confederation, and later the US Constitution when they realized that the Articles weren't working so good.

 

[Matt]

The US Constitution and the subsequent amendments are law of the land, as well as the US Code, the rulings by the Supreme Court, laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, laws passed by Congress which over-rule the President's veto, Executive Orders, the Code of Federal Regulations, US Statutes, rulings by the US Court of Appeals, rulings by the US District Courts, and then each State's constitutions, the rulings by each state's supreme court, each state's statutes, each state's regulations, and then municipal law for each city or town in those states, all have legal weight.

The Declaration of Independence had only one purpose: to declare the independence of 13 colonies from Great Britain. Once finished, each former colony worked on their constitutions, and then worked on the Articles of the Confederation, and later the US Constitution when they realized that the Articles weren't working so good.

I didn't cite the DOI so it is moot. At any rate, your argument is wrong.

1) Rulings by the Supreme Court are not laws. They are interpretations of law and are supposed to be interpreted in accordance with the Constituion.

2) Everything else you have cited is trumped by the Constitution. That is the purpose of the Supreme Court. To ensure laws that Congress pass are within the confines laid out by the Constitution. The Constitution's sole purpose is to limit what the federal government can and cannot do and what rights the people have. The expansion of the federal government is a violation of it and Governor Perry is well within his rights to challenge it in court as uncostitutional and create state laws to reject it.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Except it's dangerous activity for a politician trying to trump up support before he goes into a primary battle with Hutchison.

This is the type of action that will stir up sececessionist whackos.


Very irresponsible behavior and inappropriate for the leader of a state.

 

[BlackLantern]

Except it's dangerous activity for a politician trying to trump up support before he goes into a primary battle with Hutchison.

This is the type of action that will stir up sececessionist whackos.


Very irresponsible behavior and inappropriate for the leader of a state.

I don't agree...what they are doing is in the letter of the law

 

[Franklin Richards]

You don't yell "fire" in a full theater. Especially if you are the manager of the theater.

 

[BlackLantern]

if a state doesn't want to take federal money, they shouldn't be forced to....

 

[Franklin Richards]

But they are taking the money. He hasn't refused any of it.

 

[Malice]

Perry is only saying what people think in those moments when they are alone.

He stated, that the unfair financial burden on his constituents needs to be addressed.
If it continues...a little comment like this may become something far more stern and serious.

It is a politicians responsibility to warn a governmental body when its doing wrong...or even wrong if he believes it to be.

If he was running around yesterday saying grab your guns...we are leaving now. Yes..irresponsible because he did not attempt to resolve the issue first thru numerous attempts and means

 

[Malice]

But they are taking the money. He hasn't refused any of it.

Yes he has...the unemployment part

 

[Franklin Richards]

So he wants the pork and not the money that will help unemployed.


That's better.

 

[Malice]

So he wants the pork and not the money that will help unemployed.


That's better.

no, he does not want to take money...that will then extend texas debt when the money runs out from the stimulus...
no wait...

you keep using the sick child argument...
forget it, I am wrong

 

[Franklin Richards]

I like how you and I don't edit our thinking while we're typing.


Just word vomit all over the screen.

 

[Malice]

I like how you and I don't edit our thinking while we're typing.


Just word vomit all over the screen.

Hey...we are all friends here...even though I want to strangle you sometimes.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Nothing worse than a Lefty Texan!

 

[Addendum]

I didn't cite the DOI so it is moot. At any rate, your argument is wrong.

1) Rulings by the Supreme Court are not laws. They are interpretations of law and are supposed to be interpreted in accordance with the Constituion.

2) Everything else you have cited is trumped by the Constitution. That is the purpose of the Supreme Court. To ensure laws that Congress pass are within the confines laid out by the Constitution. The Constitution's sole purpose is to limit what the federal government can and cannot do and what rights the people have. The expansion of the federal government is a violation of it and Governor Perry is well within his rights to challenge it in court as uncostitutional and create state laws to reject it.

Rulings by the Supreme Court aren't laws? Then how do you explain the Supreme Court ruling that segregation was unconstitutional and the enforcement of that ruling before the Civil Rights Act was passed?

I'm aware that the Constitution trumps the other stuff. However, the other stuff still has legal weight and merit. The Declaration of Independence does not.

 

[SuBe]

hey, a document that served it's purpose in 1776 and has no further legal standing.

Umm.. And Abraham's Quote does? I'm just playing quotesies.

The Declaration of Independence is the Ideals behind the Constitution.

The Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and Abolishen of Unjust Government are ideals, the Constitution is the Legal Framework to Protect those ideals.

If you are saying that our Government should or would no longer regard the intents of the Founding Documents as having any legal Standing, then it is time to Alter or Abolish this Government in favor of one that Does Protect our Rights.

 

[Addendum]

I said that the document itself had only one purpose: declaring independence. That happened, and they wrote another document to create the law of the land, and from that other laws. Then that document wasn't working as well, so they wrote yet another document to form the law of the land, and from that document, other laws were made.

The Declaration has no legal standing. The Constitution does. The US Code does. The various Statutes do. The executive orders do.

 

[The Overlord]

What if a state has a stupid law, like anti sodomy laws, would the courts overturning that be bad?

 

[Franklin Richards]

Or slavery or segregation or the right to vote?

 

[Addendum]

And the courts over-ruling those laws have more legal standing than the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Malice]

then the federal government would overturn it

 

[Addendum]

If the legislative branch of the federal government so decided.

 

[The Overlord]

then the federal government would overturn it

But is that a violation of state's rights?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Except it's dangerous activity for a politician trying to trump up support before he goes into a primary battle with Hutchison.

This is the type of action that will stir up sececessionist whackos.


Very irresponsible behavior and inappropriate for the leader of a state.

Yes it is very irresponsible and inappropriate behavior for someone to assert their rights. I guess it was irresponsible and inappropriate when Martin Luthor King Jr. led the march on Washington DC and proclaimed how he had a dream. I guess it is irresponsible and inappropriate when gay rights groups try to assert their rights to equality before the government in a court of law. I guess it is irresponsible and inappropriate that Susan B. Anthony went up and voted when she was told not to.

When a state asserts its rights granted to it by the Constitution which is the highest law in the land, above Congress and the President, it isn't an act of treason or secession. It's just making sure that the rights that are entitled to the states are being upheld and defended. But I guess it's irresponsible and inappropriate to try and enforce a part of the Constitution that you don't agree with.

And while we're just throwing away parts of the Constitution how about we get rid of that pesky little free speech thing while we're at it. So that way those irresponsible and inappropriate governors will shut up. And lets get rid of that right to assembly so we can get rid of those annoying tea party protesters.

 

[hippie_hunter]

And the courts over-ruling those laws have more legal standing than the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence really doesn't have legal standing to begin with. It is not a code of law, it is just a document that declared our independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. There really is no need for a debate on the standing of the Declaration of Independence for that particular reason, especially when we have the Constitution which is a the ultimate code of law in this country upholding the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.