Message from @Pyro

Discord ID: 514311670307356673


2018-11-20 05:29:09 UTC  

Ignore the fucking amendments

2018-11-20 05:29:11 UTC  

you should've made a better exmaple

2018-11-20 05:29:11 UTC  

God

2018-11-20 05:29:16 UTC  

> ignore the amendments

2018-11-20 05:29:19 UTC  

Chill

2018-11-20 05:29:19 UTC  

lets just say thats its a really bad example

2018-11-20 05:29:20 UTC  

what about the second?

2018-11-20 05:29:39 UTC  

fifteenth?

2018-11-20 05:29:39 UTC  

wouldnt a better example be talking about plessy v ferguson?

2018-11-20 05:30:03 UTC  

I guess someone actually gets what I'm talking about

2018-11-20 05:30:14 UTC  

Or maybe roe v wade

2018-11-20 05:30:14 UTC  

im just giving you the benefit of the doubt

2018-11-20 05:30:15 UTC  

indeed

2018-11-20 05:30:25 UTC  

I know exactly what you're talking about

2018-11-20 05:30:34 UTC  

I just don't agree that the supreme court is manufacturing law out of thin air

2018-11-20 05:30:40 UTC  

Can I get a summary to catch up

2018-11-20 05:30:44 UTC  

@xorgy freedom of religon is in far more then just the 1st amendent as well. It's in the declaration of indepence as well

2018-11-20 05:30:51 UTC  

and you think that, but your example was an excellent example of straightforward constitutional law

2018-11-20 05:30:52 UTC  

Or any number of cases where the scotus decided it was unconstitutional even though the constitution never specifically says so

2018-11-20 05:30:56 UTC  

involving no particularly difficult arguments

2018-11-20 05:30:57 UTC  

same, i never got that summary earlier

2018-11-20 05:31:16 UTC  

Wait. It would be good for both sides to summarize their points

2018-11-20 05:31:22 UTC  

Besides even if judicial review was in the constitution

2018-11-20 05:31:34 UTC  

@Misomania yeah, I chose the 1st because it also has two other clauses relevant to the example

2018-11-20 05:31:38 UTC  

It's still too much fucking power for 9 unelected officials

2018-11-20 05:32:07 UTC  

Luckily it's not and can be curb stomped

2018-11-20 05:32:09 UTC  

here we go again with the "judicial review" boogeyman

2018-11-20 05:32:21 UTC  

actually the reason for it is because it would make the supreme court completely useless

2018-11-20 05:32:29 UTC  

you give me permission to boil pasta, and now you're upset I'm boiling macaroni

2018-11-20 05:32:49 UTC  

I don't find this mode of debate helpful

2018-11-20 05:32:54 UTC  

Be back in a few

2018-11-20 05:33:11 UTC  

come on you two i know you guys can be civil

2018-11-20 05:33:28 UTC  

"the word 'macaroni' doesn't appear _anywhere_ in my letter of permission for you to boil pasta"

2018-11-20 05:33:43 UTC  

The court was meant to be useless, it was meant to delegate between 2 parties as an unbiased 3rd party

2018-11-20 05:33:50 UTC  

> the court was meant to be useless

2018-11-20 05:34:11 UTC  

What part of the constitution says, "review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act."

2018-11-20 05:34:32 UTC  

the part where the U.S. is a party

2018-11-20 05:34:40 UTC  

in any question concerning the constitutionality of a legislative act

2018-11-20 05:34:48 UTC  

I need exact words

2018-11-20 05:34:53 UTC  

Not implied phrases