Message from @xorgy

Discord ID: 514312694745006080


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

2018-11-20 05:35:09 UTC  

read it a couple times

2018-11-20 05:35:13 UTC  

I have

2018-11-20 05:35:19 UTC  

It's not in there

2018-11-20 05:35:35 UTC  

now try to imagine you're not somebody arguing against the institution's purpose

2018-11-20 05:35:46 UTC  

because clearly that's not what the authors of article III meant

2018-11-20 05:36:04 UTC  

a judicial review isn't really all that powerful anyway iirc, to stop one branch they need the agreement (or at least passivity) of the 3rd branch. If both agreed against the judicial branch then they get their say instead

2018-11-20 05:36:23 UTC  

and you'll understand how cases where the U.S. is a party, including all questions about legislation, are subject to the judicial power

2018-11-20 05:36:39 UTC  

executive orders though.... god damn they expanded that to much

2018-11-20 05:36:42 UTC  

Where does it say that

2018-11-20 05:36:48 UTC  

section 2

2018-11-20 05:36:51 UTC  

just read it, please

2018-11-20 05:36:53 UTC  

don't say you read it

2018-11-20 05:36:55 UTC  

I have

2018-11-20 05:36:55 UTC  

actually read it

2018-11-20 05:36:58 UTC  

no, you haven't

2018-11-20 05:37:00 UTC  

oh yea you can basically do anything with an EO

2018-11-20 05:37:06 UTC  

It's not written there

2018-11-20 05:37:09 UTC  

Its implied

2018-11-20 05:37:19 UTC  

I dont believe in implied powers

2018-11-20 05:37:22 UTC  

...