Civil Right not a Civil Right

[sudden valley gunner]

If my memory serves me right all 50 states have ratified the US Constitution and do their best to use it as a guide. This is why when there is a lawsuit in a state it can be appealed through the state court system but eventually can fall into the US Supreme Court. This is also why rulings from them end up affecting the state laws and states in general. If I haven't gone entirely senile the US Supreme Court is one of the three separate entities of the Federal system, the others being Legislative (Congress) and Executive (Pres.).

So when a state sues a business they are doing it under the laws of the United States.

As for adding, I was referring to you assuming I was referring to the Federal Government suing and not comprehending that I didn't specify.

I guess I have to have more precision and spoon feed it to you also. Please let me know if you are still having issues with how the government works and I will try to explain it to you, I promise not to use big words.

Not so fast.

The ratification of the constitution only grants the federal government the powers enumerated in the constitution. It is not a "guide" for the states, matter of fact The constitution of Virginia was used much as a guide for the U.S. constitution. SCOTUS has refused to see cases even citing they didn't have authority too, and often SCOTUS has had to take into consideration state law when they have.

 

[DocWalker]

Not so fast.

The ratification of the constitution only grants the federal government the powers enumerated in the constitution. It is not a "guide" for the states, matter of fact The constitution of Virginia was used much as a guide for the U.S. constitution. SCOTUS has refused to see cases even citing they didn't have authority too, and often SCOTUS has had to take into consideration state law when they have.

Can you give me an example were SCOTUS has specificly delined hearing a case for the only reason it being a state issue. Even the latest issue in Kalifornia were the votors voted against state marriage was heared by the SCOTUS. It had nothing to do with the US Constution and is still a state problem. They heard the arguments and decided that a state judge has the power to over turn the will of the voters. Making gay marriage legal in Kalifornia, it is the way of the new world. A (in this case) gay judge choose to throw out the official results and will of the people of Kalifornia and SCOTUS let it stand.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Can you give me an example were SCOTUS has specificly delined hearing a case for the only reason it being a state issue. Even the latest issue in Kalifornia were the votors voted against state marriage was heared by the SCOTUS. It had nothing to do with the US Constution and is still a state problem. They heard the arguments and decided that a state judge has the power to over turn the will of the voters. Making gay marriage legal in Kalifornia, it is the way of the new world. A (in this case) gay judge choose to throw out the official results and will of the people of Kalifornia and SCOTUS let it stand.

Not off the top of my head, since they don't hear them they are not much publicized I do recall it happening during my life.

I will ask you to cite in the constitution it grants them this authority. The rest of my post even without a cite still stands.

From Texas vs White, a horribly unconstitutional decision by statist judges yet.....

‘in all cases … in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction,’ necessarily refer to all cases mentioned in the preceding clause in which a state may be made of right a party defendant, or in which a state may of right be a party plaintiff. It is admitted that these words do not refer to suits brought against a state by its own citizens or by citizens of other srtates, or by citizens or subjects of foreign states, even where such suits arise under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, because the judicial power of the United States does not extend to suits of individuals against states.

 

[DocWalker]

There are more than 570 volumes of United States Reports of SCOTUS cases (largely as it also contains SCOTUS predecessors). A recent average annual case rate is fifteen cases per year.

yes, and there is pollution in the air but we can't see it.....

I was told the moon was made of cheese when I was 2 years old but I later found out it wasn't. They never proved it was I was just told to trust them.

and one of my favorites

If you can't show them facts...baffle them with BS.

 

[DocWalker]

Not off the top of my head, since they don't hear them they are not much publicized I do recall it happening during my life.

I will ask you to cite in the constitution it grants them this authority. The rest of my post even without a cite still stands.

From Texas vs White, a horribly unconstitutional decision by statist judges yet.....

‘in all cases … in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction,’ necessarily refer to all cases mentioned in the preceding clause in which a state may be made of right a party defendant, or in which a state may of right be a party plaintiff. It is admitted that these words do not refer to suits brought against a state by its own citizens or by citizens of other srtates, or by citizens or subjects of foreign states, even where such suits arise under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, because the judicial power of the United States does not extend to suits of individuals against states.

I did notice you didn't bold nor color red this part...

" ‘in all cases … in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction,"

I also notice that the part you highlighted red refers to states being sued (the state being the defendent). This case refers to a state suing a buisness for a civil rights complaint which does fall under the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

Conclusion = Site has no connection to this case.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I did notice you didn't bold nor color red this part...

" ‘in all cases … in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction,"

I also notice that the part you highlighted red refers to states being sued (the state being the defendent). This case refers to a state suing a buisness for a civil rights complaint which does fall under the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

Conclusion = Site has no connection to this case.

I didn't bold it or refer to it because it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Your last point does not contradict me.

Do some independent research man, the constitution itself, shows the that the SCOTUS has limited jurisdiction, which is my point.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

There are more than 570 volumes of United States Reports of SCOTUS cases (largely as it also contains SCOTUS predecessors). A recent average annual case rate is fifteen cases per year.

+1 80,000 -150,000 cases presented most rejected, some are more than likely rejected for jurisdictional reasons.

yes, and there is pollution in the air but we can't see it.....

I was told the moon was made of cheese when I was 2 years old but I later found out it wasn't. They never proved it was I was just told to trust them.

and one of my favorites

If you can't show them facts...baffle them with BS.

Fallacy agrument, I can ask you to prove to me a 4 sided triangle doesn't exist, and then claim your lack of evidence proves me right.

 

[DocWalker]

+1 80,000 -150,000 cases presented most rejected, some are more than likely rejected for jurisdictional reasons.



Fallacy agrument, I can ask you to prove to me a 4 sided triangle doesn't exist, and then claim your lack of evidence proves me right.

Back to the origional request.

I asked for "One" case not 150,000 or more un-named maybe's.

I asked for a simple cite for an argument you initially claimed. Not a un-named maybe nor a clipped part of a un referenced statute that seems to say the opposite of what your claiming. I'm not saying your wrong but then why does holder and the goverment keep suing the states for different things that you would claim to be a states issue. If you like I will site you a couple....

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...gain-control-of-southern-states-water-supply/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101009075613AAhIImT

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SCOTUS hearing state cases...

http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowl...urt-will-hear-new-jersey-sports-betting-case/

http://florida-issues.blogspot.com/2007/09/supreme-court-hears-appeals-from-state.html

The reason the SCOTUS hears state cases is if the state case has to do with a federal issue such as discrimination as in the flower shop being sued by the state. It could but not likely end up in SCOTUS since the state is claiming that the flower shop went against the US Constitution by discrimination of a gay couple.

Your straw man argument about the SCOTUS doesn't hear state cases is false...they can and do.

 

[papa bear]

Using an opinion to contradict? I cited sources. You want for the right to bear arms....read Blackstone's commentaries on English law, that is what our legal system is based on. I posted the quotes before...but I think you need to look it up and read it yourself.

And yes I'll say I have the right to bear arms with out the second amendment, we already discussed this in this thread the constitution grants no rights, it is a law for the federal government it's shalls and shall nots.

I have the right to wear clothes it isn't in the consitution, I have the right to free speach, the right to express myself, the right to earn a living to provide for myself and loved ones etc.....have you read anything at all on what the constitution is based on or the prevailing theory of natural law the founders expounded upon?

actually you don't have the right to clothes, if you did you would be issued a uniform as you grew. or maybe you would be born with clothes. also the making a living is more of a responsibility then a right. you are right the constitution does not grant rights, but does spell them out

i have read Blackstone, a couple of times. makes you think. non-conductive to the discussion.

the point is if the 2ndA was not written out. would you still be able to carry?

the constitution also applies to individuales too. there have been people charged and convicted with violating other's constitutional rights

 

[papa bear]

let's say this EYE, if someone said "they know that, you do have the right to NOT be poor". would they be wrong?. what about a right to a house? or right to a job?

i would suggest that just because someone thinks there should be a right, do they have one?

 

[papa bear]

First of all, what you're "allowed to do" is an entirely different subject from what you have a "right to do", and I think that you are trying to lump the two together. If I go over to your house, point a gun at your head, and say don't leave, you might say you "aren't allowed" to leave, but you still have the right to leave. You physically won't be able to accomplish the task (assuming you aren't able to defend yourself, which you probably would be able to), but you still have the right. If we did not have a second amendment, or any of the bill of rights, then yes, we would still have the right to keep and bear arms. Would we be allowed to? Who knows. ETA: Many today "aren't allowed" even with the bill of rights.

As far as "where this property right comes from", I will again for the 3rd time post the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

can't argue with your logic. but where is the line between an opinion and a actual right?

 

[papa bear]

What right?

I haven't said anything about a right. I said that the government is telling a private business that they can't discriminate but then turn around and tell a business they can discriminate.

Examples I have previously posted.

Government sues a flower shop for not selling flowers to a gay couple (not protected under the US Constitution).

Government says the same flower shop can refuse to sell flowers to an Open Carrier and that is fine. (2A protects our right to carry)

This is what I'm upset about; a business should be allowed to sell to whomever they would like and not be intruded upon by the Government.

It has nothing to do with public places; it also has nothing to do with what right a person has. There is no law or document in the US constitution saying the flower shop has to sell to a gay couple but they are being sued none the less. Can you explain that one?

i totally agree DOC. but isn't that the crutch of the whole discussion? the right to be gay is an assumed right, whereas the RKBA is a guaranteed right. shouldn't that also mean that a guaranteed right should be better then an assumed right of property

 

[papa bear]

If my memory serves me right all 50 states have ratified the US Constitution and do their best to use it as a guide. This is why when there is a lawsuit in a state it can be appealed through the state court system but eventually can fall into the US Supreme Court. This is also why rulings from them end up affecting the state laws and states in general. If I haven't gone entirely senile the US Supreme Court is one of the three separate entities of the Federal system, the others being Legislative (Congress) and Executive (Pres.).

So when a state sues a business they are doing it under the laws of the United States.

As for adding, I was referring to you assuming I was referring to the Federal Government suing and not comprehending that I didn't specify.

I guess I have to have more precision and spoon feed it to you also. Please let me know if you are still having issues with how the government works and I will try to explain it to you, I promise not to use big words.

don't be petty DOC. that is what the progressives do. also a state does sue with their own laws too.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Back to the origional request.

I asked for "One" case not 150,000 or more un-named maybe's.

I asked for a simple cite for an argument you initially claimed. Not a un-named maybe nor a clipped part of a un referenced statute that seems to say the opposite of what your claiming. I'm not saying your wrong but then why does holder and the goverment keep suing the states for different things that you would claim to be a states issue. If you like I will site you a couple....

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...gain-control-of-southern-states-water-supply/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101009075613AAhIImT

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SCOTUS hearing state cases...

http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowl...urt-will-hear-new-jersey-sports-betting-case/

http://florida-issues.blogspot.com/2007/09/supreme-court-hears-appeals-from-state.html

The reason the SCOTUS hears state cases is if the state case has to do with a federal issue such as discrimination as in the flower shop being sued by the state. It could but not likely end up in SCOTUS since the state is claiming that the flower shop went against the US Constitution by discrimination of a gay couple.

Your straw man argument about the SCOTUS doesn't hear state cases is false...they can and do.

I didn't say they didn't hear cases they also don't hear cases.

You are changing the broad issue you brought up of all cases to cases dealing with civil rights. That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I asked you for a constitutional cite you provided none, because it isn't there. I quoted a case that showed SCOTUS itself telling their are cases they have no jurisdiction over.

So come again, I am not the one that brought up the "straw man argument" someone else did.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

actually you don't have the right to clothes, if you did you would be issued a uniform as you grew. or maybe you would be born with clothes. also the making a living is more of a responsibility then a right. you are right the constitution does not grant rights, but does spell them out

i have read Blackstone, a couple of times. makes you think. non-conductive to the discussion.

the point is if the 2ndA was not written out. would you still be able to carry?

the constitution also applies to individuales too. there have been people charged and convicted with violating other's constitutional rights

Nope it has been clarified many times our rights don't come from someone else, until you let go of the faulty logic that someone else provides us with rights. The constitution doesn't spell rights out it enumerates a few to insure the federal government doesn't infringe upon them. It also numbers the powers and authority granted the government, if something doesn't fall into those enumerated powers the government has no authority to infringe upon that activity.

Read the 9th and 10th amendments.....the ninth basically says rights can't be numbered.

Black stone has nothing to with the 2A, your right to bear arms predates the 2A, the 2A has to do with your right to resist government.

Did you miss this from Blackstone?

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute . . . and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

or this...

[T]o vindicate [the three primary rights], when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.

or how about Aristotle observations of the right to bear arms? Or John Lockes? or just about how every culture in the world had recognized that right in one manner or another?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Back to the origional request.

I asked for "One" case .....

Gunn v. Minton...

Feds wouldn't hear it because it was filed under state law, even though it was a patent issue which feds have jurisdiction over.....

 

[DocWalker]

don't be petty DOC. that is what the progressives do. also a state does sue with their own laws too.

Ouch, comparing me to a progressive....I would much rather you call me a blank_hole.

LOL

 

[DocWalker]

I didn't say they didn't hear cases they also don't hear cases.

You are changing the broad issue you brought up of all cases to cases dealing with civil rights. That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I asked you for a constitutional cite you provided none, because it isn't there. I quoted a case that showed SCOTUS itself telling their are cases they have no jurisdiction over.

So come again, I am not the one that brought up the "straw man argument" someone else did.

The case we are discussing is about civil rights so it does fall into the perview of the SCOTUS. Quoting a case that SCOTUS didn't take up has nothing to do with my point. SCOTUS decides on the cases they want to discuss, thus anything such as dealing with civil or even a buisness could fall under SCOTUS jurisdiction. They could us the Civil rights argument or the Commerce laws as the goverment uses for anytime they want to screw Americans.

 

[DocWalker]

Gunn v. Minton...

Feds wouldn't hear it because it was filed under state law, even though it was a patent issue which feds have jurisdiction over.....

SCOTUS decides on the cases it wants to hear, the reason wasn't because it was filed under state law only. They had other reasons and kicked it back to the state to figure out, just like they did this year with the California gay marriage isssue. They looked at the case and sent it back to the state without making a ruling. It was a way for SCOTUS to say we looked at it but we don't want to get in the middle of the debate. If the state goverment wants to go against the voters than that is their problem.

 

[carolina guy]

Originally Posted by Nightmare
There are more than 570 volumes of United States Reports of SCOTUS cases (largely as it also contains SCOTUS predecessors). A recent average annual case rate is fifteen cases per year.

+1 80,000 -150,000 cases presented most rejected, some are more than likely rejected for jurisdictional reasons.

Originally Posted by DocWalker
yes, and there is pollution in the air but we can't see it.....

I was told the moon was made of cheese when I was 2 years old but I later found out it wasn't. They never proved it was I was just told to trust them.

and one of my favorites

If you can't show them facts...baffle them with BS.

Fallacy agrument, I can ask you to prove to me a 4 sided triangle doesn't exist, and then claim your lack of evidence proves me right.

From April this year...somewhat relevant to this forum...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-pivotal-2nd-amendment-case/

From the article...

Because the Court does not explain orders denying review, there is no way to know why the Justices would again choose not to get involved in a controversy...

And then there is this from June...
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2013/06/supreme_court_declines_to_hear.php

While the state won...

The state could, in essence, overrule the decision by enacting a law permitting access - but there is no indication such such an effort is forthcoming.

Kind of amazing that the federal courts don't have to hear every single murder and assault case that was originally decided under state laws unless the defendant is able to make a case that the federal courts even have jurisdiction to hear the case (ie. discrimination, jury issues, etc).

Time to go look at the "invisible" air pollution.