Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: ballsalsa]
    #27846409 - 07/02/22 12:13 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Yes they could.  The only court  Required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The rest of the federal system is completely a creature of statute.




For that matter, even judicial review by SCOTUS is just a courtesy/convention conjured from thin air and extended by the good graces of congress



Not exactly, but it is interesting to ponder what SCOTUS could do to stop Congress if they decided to ignore them.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
    #27846420 - 07/02/22 12:18 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Isn’t the entire system “completely a creature of statute”?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846426 - 07/02/22 12:25 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Depends on what you mean by "entire system."  Certainly, federalism isn't a creature of statute.  When I read "entire system," I assume you mean federalism.  So...I guess the answer is no.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
    #27846429 - 07/02/22 12:27 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

The constitution is just a bunch of statutes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846436 - 07/02/22 12:34 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

You're thoroughly confused.  The Constitution is completely different from a statute.  That's the point of a constitution, after all.  Statutes are decided by legislators who respond to public desires.  A constitution is there to set boundaries to statutes in an attempt to reduce the effect of tyranny of the majority.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
    #27846446 - 07/02/22 12:46 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

How did the constitution get there in the first place? Wasn’t it composed by a body of legislators who were, in essence, creating statutes? Legislators who were mindful of their own interests as much they were of public desires? I don’t see why the constitution needs to be treated like a holy writ. What happens when the minority becomes the one who poses the threat of tyranny against the majority (which seems to be the case 99.9% of the time throughout history, at least as far as a ruling minority subjects its accompanying majority to statutes)?

Edited by Cymbal (07/02/22 12:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846455 - 07/02/22 12:53 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Cymbal said:
1803 occurred in the 19th century




Yes.  Maybe I didn't understand the point you were trying to make when you said that you didn't want to live in the 18th or 19th centuries.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846460 - 07/02/22 12:56 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Cymbal said:
How did the constitution get there in the first place? Wasn’t it composed by a body of legislators who were, in essence, creating statutes?



No, and I'm sorry the educational system failed you.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846461 - 07/02/22 12:57 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

The Constitution of the U.S. is extremely malleable and has been amended many times.  This is fundamentally different from how people treat things considered "holy writ". 

Of course the framers had their own interests in mind, thus the need for ongoing amendments


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
    #27846467 - 07/02/22 01:03 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
Quote:

Cymbal said:
1803 occurred in the 19th century




Yes.  Maybe I didn't understand the point you were trying to make when you said that you didn't want to live in the 18th or 19th centuries.




Yeah, I don’t want to live like that

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Cymbal said:
How did the constitution get there in the first place? Wasn’t it composed by a body of legislators who were, in essence, creating statutes?



No, and I'm sorry the educational system failed you.




The framers weren’t legislators legislating?

Edited by Cymbal (07/02/22 01:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846507 - 07/02/22 01:54 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Not a fan of electric light or communication?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: ballsalsa]
    #27846513 - 07/02/22 01:55 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Forward forever, backwards never

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846521 - 07/02/22 02:04 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

That's cool.

Did you have a position that you're able to articulate regarding judicial review as it applies to the OP or not really?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: ballsalsa]
    #27846524 - 07/02/22 02:08 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Not as long as we are playing games with words and confining ourselves to rigid paradigms. The American situation will continue to deteriorate. Forecast is great conflagration

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846541 - 07/02/22 02:24 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Right, as long as you're going to play games I won't be able to understand what you're trying to say.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: ballsalsa]
    #27846546 - 07/02/22 02:28 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Gasoline? Check
Matches? Check

:onfire::onfire::onfire:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846571 - 07/02/22 03:04 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Enlil wants to believe that there won’t be any practical applications of these judgments. He attempts to conjure them away with legalese. “Nothing to see here, guys.” The reason he does this is because the law is his religion, his god. He needs to keep faith. The dogma of his profession is the most concrete and stable thing in his life, the only aspect of this world that still makes sense. If he admitted to himself that the law was just another perspective, as arbitrary and contingent as all of the others, his sense of meaning would be shattered and he’d have no source to draw upon for hope.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846581 - 07/02/22 03:18 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Cymbal said:

The framers weren’t legislators legislating?



No.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
    #27846583 - 07/02/22 03:20 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Wizards? Demigods?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
    #27846584 - 07/02/22 03:20 PM (1 year, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Cymbal said:
Enlil wants to believe that there won’t be any practical applications of these judgments. He attempts to conjure them away with legalese. “Nothing to see here, guys.” The reason he does this is because the law is his religion, his god. He needs to keep faith. The dogma of his profession is the most concrete and stable thing in his life, the only aspect of this world that still makes sense. If he admitted to himself that the law was just another perspective, as arbitrary and contingent as all of the others, his sense of meaning would be shattered and he’d have no source to draw upon for hope.



Red, I do believe you're talking out of your ass.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* trayvon martin shooting
( 1 2 3 4 ... 219 220 )
schnauzer 106,806 4,390 11/19/13 04:42 PM
by imachavel
* Stephen Harper's Neo-Conservatism lonestar2004 1,050 5 07/09/06 10:05 AM
by Luddite
* Barry Ohbummer and Stephen Harper carbonhoots 500 3 02/24/09 09:51 AM
by zappaisgod
* The Harper Curse - newest of the Famous Curses Luddite 584 4 12/22/07 02:26 PM
by fantastical
* 10 Reasons Bush wants to ban Moore film
( 1 2 3 4 all )
LearyfanS 8,207 60 06/02/04 11:15 AM
by Vvellum
* Michael Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks Luddite 1,545 14 12/29/16 09:11 AM
by hostileuniverse
* Moore hits back
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 5,365 62 10/02/03 07:29 AM
by Anonymous
* Moore and Stern Take On Bush
( 1 2 3 all )
fft2 2,641 55 07/08/04 11:58 PM
by Redo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
683 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.