Message from @ShotgunMessiah

Discord ID: 819981353637380118


2021-03-12 16:50:45 UTC  

i wouldn't...

2021-03-12 16:51:01 UTC  

Found out spinal curvature is below 10 degrees

2021-03-12 16:51:10 UTC  

I'd sooner start a fire with your fanfic @Kitten

2021-03-12 16:51:13 UTC  

```Please be sure to read the announcements. There are rules there that must be followed. Do not impersonate the bot.```

2021-03-12 16:51:14 UTC  

Sorry, the Constitutional Library is limited to four books. 🤷‍♂️

2021-03-12 16:51:15 UTC  

makes good kindling

2021-03-12 16:51:16 UTC  

Meaning it shouldn't get worse, so I would still be eligible for Military service

2021-03-12 16:51:22 UTC  

hehehe

2021-03-12 16:56:05 UTC  

hey hey hey

2021-03-12 16:56:10 UTC  

Also because you wanna stop flooding the channel I'll just leave links and a few tiny comments and call it a day. By informal amendment I'm referring to judicial review, how in one period the courts may upheld one interpretation of the constitution then in another uphold a different on. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/amending-the-constitution/

https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-executive-orders

2021-03-12 16:56:55 UTC  

On the note of judicial review, two words and pardon my latin: stare decisis. 🙂

2021-03-12 16:57:12 UTC  

Also I really should buy some constitutional works for my studies

2021-03-12 16:57:42 UTC  

Funk is great. He is the author of the black con law book above.

2021-03-12 16:58:46 UTC  

Problem is history has been rocky i.e in the case of civil rights

2021-03-12 17:02:53 UTC  

Civil Rights is a maybe, but even then, they do not determine or make law, simply determine whether it is constitutional. For example, Master Cake they didn’t wave a giant gavel. They simply ruled on constitutionality and let the state government fix it. Also, dissenting opinions existed. Especially in Virginia v. Loving. There are a lot of cases where later on the dissent becomes the majority. Doesn’t mean that it is living, simply means the court has the ability to determine that previous viewpoints were wrong.

2021-03-12 17:09:39 UTC  

Also judicial review going against stare decisis is a big reason why you have the entrenched right to bear arms you do now, United States V Miller really went against the common view of the 2nd Amendment that exists now

2021-03-12 17:11:21 UTC  

The Supreme Court has a history of ping ponging on the constitution depending on public opinion and party control

2021-03-12 17:11:58 UTC  

Bruh

2021-03-12 17:12:08 UTC  

Why delete my awesome emojis

2021-03-12 17:12:12 UTC  

<a:etc_bounce:783200785848205312>

2021-03-12 17:13:09 UTC  

sup peeps

2021-03-12 17:13:28 UTC  

Because they're not relevant to the conversation

2021-03-12 17:14:11 UTC  

But it's an emoji...

2021-03-12 17:14:29 UTC  

Doesn't matter what it is if it's not relevant to the conversation

2021-03-12 17:15:05 UTC  

so nothings up?

2021-03-12 17:15:06 UTC  

"No images, links, gifs, etc, unless relevant to the current conversation. Do not flood the chat with images."
Pretty sure Emojis classify as an image here, though it might be best to throw emojis into the list of things

2021-03-12 17:15:39 UTC  

well if he put them now they would be part of the covo of talking about them now

2021-03-12 17:16:00 UTC  

Because they weren't relevant.

And HMAB, stare decisis is great for people who practice law and people that plan on suing. Also, the law at question in Miller was repealed.

2021-03-12 17:19:20 UTC  

Yeah thats my point, Justice Scalia didn't follow the historical precedent set on the constitution by judicial review and went against the ruling

2021-03-12 17:20:12 UTC  

Also judicial review, another thing not in the U.S constitutional but developed as a fundamental power of the supreme court

2021-03-12 17:23:55 UTC  

Which means the authors of Miller were wrong. If a law is found to be blatantly unconstitutional, then why would the Supreme Court uphold it. Stare Decisis depends on good decisions made prior.

And also, the basis of judicial review, formed as a fundamental power through Marbury v. Madison, was something that, although not explicitly listed, are a portion of the powers that follow under article 2, section 2.

2021-03-12 17:24:46 UTC  

@BestStarPilotintheGalaxy🎃 Wanna put those in a meme channel instead of in general?

2021-03-12 17:26:38 UTC  

Froski sounds like this lawyer I listen to on youtube

2021-03-12 17:28:32 UTC  

Which YouTuber is that? Also, probably not me.

2021-03-12 17:28:38 UTC  

I'm sure it's not

2021-03-12 17:29:00 UTC  

The Canadian one, isn't it? 🤣

2021-03-12 17:29:15 UTC  

actually, yes

2021-03-12 17:29:16 UTC  

Viva Frei

2021-03-12 17:29:40 UTC  

Love listening to his legal analysis on different matters

2021-03-12 17:29:46 UTC  

Hi

2021-03-12 17:29:53 UTC  

But that is your in essense, an interpretation. It is your own opinion that the Miller was blatantly unconstitutional as the case does have a constitutional basis. Judicial review and the greater notion of informal amendments to the constitution which I'm touching on is a rolling thing, a living thing not something which receives a definitive 'this is the way' with every case, if that makes sense