Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant[quote gandalf]That’s right-wing conservatives telling people what to think.[/quote]
I think it is more extreme right-wing. You could also say that of the hard left PC crowd too – though their approach is not ‘religious’.Participant[quote gandalf]That’s right-wing conservatives telling people what to think.[/quote]
I think it is more extreme right-wing. You could also say that of the hard left PC crowd too – though their approach is not ‘religious’.Participant[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).Participant[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).Participant[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).Participant[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).Participant[quote faterikcartman]You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.[/quote]
From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).Participant[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.Participant[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.Participant[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.Participant[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.Participant[quote weberlin]You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. [/quote]
Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.Participant[quote Eugene]There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).[/quote]
No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like ‘consensus’.. it makes it easy to decide which way ‘the wind blows’. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the ‘last fact standing’. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth’s surface is 60% water!Participant[quote Eugene]There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).[/quote]
No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like ‘consensus’.. it makes it easy to decide which way ‘the wind blows’. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the ‘last fact standing’. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth’s surface is 60% water! -
AuthorPosts
