Rand Paul...Dumb as a Bag of Cunt Hair

[Minimalist]

From the junior senator from fucking kentucky....

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,”

Um, yes shit-fer-brains, that is exactly what the Supreme Court decision means... It IS constitutional.

This is an example of what the republicunts think is their "future."


The apple didn't fall far from the tree with this one.

[Jackalope]

I have three words for Paul: "Marbury", "versus", and "Madison".

He may not like the precedent, but one would have to be pretty fucking obtuse to deny that our government hasn't operated under that principle since ca. 1803.

[Darth]

I think Rand has a point, not on the healthcare law (I'm not cell versed enough on the topic to debate that), but on the supreme court and constitutionality. Has your supreme court not made terrible decisions that anyone with half a brain can see are unconstitutional? For example Schenck v. U.S in 1919.

[cratehorus]

I think Rand has a point, not on the healthcare law (I'm not cell versed enough on the topic to debate that), but on the supreme court and constitutionality. Has your supreme court not made terrible decisions that anyone with half a brain can see are unconstitutional? For example Schenck v. U.S in 1919.

yes but scheck was a socialist who was advocating non-intervention in WWI and non-violence, that's why he was jailed for protesting the draft. But this precedent was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) when a KKK leader demanded his rights be protected when he gives hate speeches about killing jews, blacks, etc. SO you see the supreme court always makes the right decision in the end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[Darth]

I think Rand has a point, not on the healthcare law (I'm not cell versed enough on the topic to debate that), but on the supreme court and constitutionality. Has your supreme court not made terrible decisions that anyone with half a brain can see are unconstitutional? For example Schenck v. U.S in 1919.

yes but scheck was a socialist who was advocating non-intervention in WWI and non-violence, that's why he was jailed for protesting the draft. But this precedent was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) when a KKK leader demanded his rights be protected when he gives hate speeches about killing jews, blacks, etc. SO you see the supreme court always makes the right decision in the end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Right, I'm not saying that they always get it wrong, or that they never or won't ever fix past mistakes, only that they haven't always got it right. Sure the terrible/unconstitutional decisions usually get overturned, but they are capable of making bad decisions in the first place no?

[Whateverist]

SO you see the supreme court always makes the right decision in the end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

That's further than I could go. The supreme court is charged with determining the correct interpretation of the constitution so that laws may not be passed which are not in accord with it. So, by definition, their rulings do have the effect of defining what is constitutional. We can argue that their motivations were political or racist or something other than the well reasoned interpretation based on the constitution .. and we would sometimes be correct. But being the "supreme" court, their rulings are the final say on what is or is not constitutional .. even when they are mistaken until such time as they themselves make that correction.

So no they don't always make the "right" decision and they can go wrong for a number of reasons. But their decisions always officially decide what is or is not permissible constitutionally.

[Brian37]

I think Rand has a point, not on the healthcare law (I'm not cell versed enough on the topic to debate that), but on the supreme court and constitutionality. Has your supreme court not made terrible decisions that anyone with half a brain can see are unconstitutional? For example Schenck v. U.S in 1919.

No he does not have a point. Being "Constitutional" does not address whether a law is good or bad. Yes we have had bad laws that were Constitutional. Crybabies like Paul forget the long term picture in that there have been cases upheld by one Supreme Court to later be over turned by another.

We don't currently know how this law will play out long term, but the same damned thing was said about social security and the GI bill when those were implemented.

If the law turns out to be that bad, the Supreme Court wont have to over turn it because even the left will want to drop it if their wallets get hit that bad by it. But if it does what some expect it to do, even the right will take to it as well.

[jackman]

cunt hair may be dumb but i still enjoy digging thru it.

[Darth]

SO you see the supreme court always makes the right decision in the end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

That's further than I could go. The supreme court is charged with determining the correct interpretation of the constitution so that laws may not be passed which are not in accord with it. So, by definition, their rulings do have the effect of defining what is constitutional. We can argue that their motivations were political or racist or something other than the well reasoned interpretation based on the constitution .. and we would sometimes be correct. But being the "supreme" court, their rulings are the final say on what is or is not constitutional .. even when they are mistaken until such time as they themselves make that correction.

So no they don't always make the "right" decision and they can go wrong for a number of reasons. But their decisions always officially decide what is or is not permissible constitutionally.

Yeah brian I've been using the terms interchangeably when I shouldn't have (though I would argue there is a very high correlation (under my definition))

Well so long as whateverist is correct I'm wrong then. It's 'constitutional', until they change their minds and say it wasn't, at which point it no longer is =P.

My definition was: In line with the constitution
and not: Is in line with what the supreme court says is constitutional

Would you say that the law is in line with the constitution though? (and I'm going to assume that that's what Rand meant, or that he is working under a similar misunderstanding).

[Anomalocaris]

I think Rand has a point, not on the healthcare law (I'm not cell versed enough on the topic to debate that), but on the supreme court and constitutionality. Has your supreme court not made terrible decisions that anyone with half a brain can see are unconstitutional? For example Schenck v. U.S in 1919.

He has no point. In our system the operational definition of what is "constitutional" with respect to legislation is effectively what supreme court says. There is no functional meaning to right or wrong in this case. Right or wrong are only the ineffectual quibble of pundits.

The fact that supreme court reverses itself is irrelevant. It is what the supreme sort says until the supreme court reverses itself, then it is what the supreme court will say after it reverses itself.

A constitution is literally worthless if there is no supreme arbiter of whether legislation is constitutional. Whether the supreme count is right is far less important than the fact that what supreme court says counts.

---

cunt hair may be dumb but i still enjoy digging thru it.

That'd dumb. I like'em clean shaven.