Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
D-pants

United States

#10686 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
A) yes, I am.
B) No, I don't generally, but if they have PC they eventually will, and if they don't have it when they do, you might get it suppressed/thrown out.
C) That cost varies considerably. It's often well worth it.
D) No, I am not, and I'm not sure why you would think I am...unless its just sarcasm...
Anyway, I had to run out for a bit, and I've noticed...no word from the "reality" guy on what he thinks is so terrible about the 14th Amendment.
Guess I'll just keep waiting. I was really looking forward to it.
woof

Well its easy. You agree its unconsitutional, yet you agree I should have money to pay to reserve my right. Crook. hypocrite. I can see why no one wants your take on any amendment.
D-pants

United States

#10687 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they have probable cause?
well I'm in American citizen so... f*** no they don't!
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10688 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>if it wasnt for the Cases & legal challenges pretaining to the 14th amendment and never taken to the SCOTUS the US Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would have never been incorporated down to the state level and is the only reason we have a Bill of Rights today is because of the SCOTUS Forcing the US constitutions Bill of Rights down to the State level.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
That's not really true, and here's why:

Lets say for example that a state passes a statutory prohibition, lets just say for simplicity, that say abortion is now criminal homicide.

A doctor is charged under that statute, convicted, and appeals that conviction unsuccessfully to the highest state court, and then appeals to the US Supreme Court, his appeal of last resort.

If raised in the state courts, his rights under the federal Constitution via the 14th Amendment that would effectively reverse his criminal conviction would ultimately be held to apply to the state by the US Supreme Court.

One could say that his federal rights were never valid until they were actually upheld in the US Supreme Court. But that would be a clear mis-statement.

In actuality, his rights under the federal constitution would have been unconstitutionally abridged by the state from the day he was charged.

The same applies to cases such as the Slaughterhouse cases.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10689 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its easy. You agree its unconsitutional, yet you agree I should have money to pay to reserve my right. Crook. hypocrite. I can see why no one wants your take on any amendment.
Then represent yourself.

You probably don't have any problem paying your doctor to treat you, your grocer for food, the gas or electric companies to heat and light your home either. Truth be told, you could do all those by yourself too???

Do it yourself.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10690 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its easy. You agree its unconsitutional, yet you agree I should have money to pay to reserve my right. Crook. hypocrite. I can see why no one wants your take on any amendment.
And I didn't say that it was un-constitutional. I said the circumstances determine whether it was.

woof

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10691 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't like the Bill of Rights?
That is kind of the Supreme Court's job. Otherwise, what's the point in having a constitution?
Repubilicans didnt like the Bill of Rights and no one should have had to go before the SCOTUS to gets those guaranteed rights back.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10692 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not really true, and here's why:
Lets say for example that a state passes a statutory prohibition, lets just say for simplicity, that say abortion is now criminal homicide.
A doctor is charged under that statute, convicted, and appeals that conviction unsuccessfully to the highest state court, and then appeals to the US Supreme Court, his appeal of last resort.
If raised in the state courts, his rights under the federal Constitution via the 14th Amendment that would effectively reverse his criminal conviction would ultimately be held to apply to the state by the US Supreme Court.
One could say that his federal rights were never valid until they were actually upheld in the US Supreme Court. But that would be a clear mis-statement.
In actuality, his rights under the federal constitution would have been unconstitutionally abridged by the state from the day he was charged.
The same applies to cases such as the Slaughterhouse cases.
woof
14th amendment and the 10th amendment some sense work together.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10693 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what you just said.
14th amendment is flawed.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10694 Oct 12, 2012
Did the Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment (June 13, 1866) or the states that ratified it (July 9, 1868) intend that the Amendment incorporate, in whole or in part, the Bill of Rights? It is a telling indictment of the incorporation doctrine that nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about incorporating any part of the Bill of Rights. The wisdom exercised by Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833) should be followed here. In writing about the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, Marshall clearly explains why such was not the case:


Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

It is inconceivable that if such a thing took place that such a significant doctrine as incorporation would be so veiled that it would take years before some Supreme Court judge discovered that there was such a thing.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/th...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#10695 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then represent yourself.
You probably don't have any problem paying your doctor to treat you, your grocer for food, the gas or electric companies to heat and light your home either. Truth be told, you could do all those by yourself too???
Do it yourself.
woof
Yet when I tell you the lazy......... I mean poor should do the same thing, you think I'm heartless. DO IT YOURSELF!
D-pants

United States

#10696 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then represent yourself.
You probably don't have any problem paying your doctor to treat you, your grocer for food, the gas or electric companies to heat and light your home either. Truth be told, you could do all those by yourself too???
Do it yourself.
woof
thats probably they worst analogy I've ever heard. Did the doctors buddies make me sick? Did the gas companies bring the winter? Did the electric companies make the sun go down? Is it the grocers fault I'm hungry?(I grow my own veggies.) Should I have all that taken away and pay you to get it back? Where did you go to school akron u?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10697 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text>
well I'm in American citizen so... f*** no they don't!
I don't think you understand the term "probable cause."
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10698 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Repubilicans didnt like the Bill of Rights and no one should have had to go before the SCOTUS to gets those guaranteed rights back.
No one did. Those rights have always been reserved (since their enactment, at least). Sometimes one has to go to a court to enforce their rights, but never to "get them."
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10699 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Did the Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment (June 13, 1866) or the states that ratified it (July 9, 1868) intend that the Amendment incorporate, in whole or in part, the Bill of Rights? It is a telling indictment of the incorporation doctrine that nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about incorporating any part of the Bill of Rights. The wisdom exercised by Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833) should be followed here. In writing about the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, Marshall clearly explains why such was not the case:
Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
It is inconceivable that if such a thing took place that such a significant doctrine as incorporation would be so veiled that it would take years before some Supreme Court judge discovered that there was such a thing.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/th...
Whether they intended incorpopration or not (I think they did), they sure wrote it in there, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Your quote from Marshall was before the 14th Amendment. As a result, that quote supports the conclusion that the intent of the 14th was incorporation, i.e. the rights were not incorporated before and the amendment was necessary to change that.

There is nothing veiled about it. In fact, I don't believe the SCOTUS has ever interpreted the 14th differently.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10700 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text>thats probably they worst analogy I've ever heard. Did the doctors buddies make me sick? Did the gas companies bring the winter? Did the electric companies make the sun go down? Is it the grocers fault I'm hungry?(I grow my own veggies.) Should I have all that taken away and pay you to get it back? Where did you go to school akron u?
Did the attorney illegally search your car?
D-pants

United States

#10702 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you understand the term "probable cause."
its a theoretical gunius. Ok say they ask if they can search. I say "I wish to reserve my constitutional rights". That's "probable cause" and I'm glad yo put it in quotes also. See by trying to reserve my rights, that's refusing the search. So I don't really have the right do I?
D-pants

United States

#10703 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the attorney illegally search your car?
no but ex lawyers write most legislation. Looking out for your buddies. Who cares its not their money..
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10704 Oct 12, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet when I tell you the lazy......... I mean poor should do the same thing, you think I'm heartless. DO IT YOURSELF!
That would be because...you are.

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10705 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text> its a theoretical gunius. Ok say they ask if they can search. I say "I wish to reserve my constitutional rights". That's "probable cause" and I'm glad yo put it in quotes also. See by trying to reserve my rights, that's refusing the search. So I don't really have the right do I?
I don't know what "its a theoretical gunius" means.

You are wrong. Refusing consent does not equal probable cause. See why you need an attorney?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10706 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text> no but ex lawyers write most legislation. Looking out for your buddies. Who cares its not their money..
The general assembly writes the laws. Unfortunately, a lot of them aren't lawyers. Having tomato farmers write legislation causes a lot of problems.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Union Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
need info 9 hr unknown 3
Mica Poe Tue Troll 3
Niki thiel is a heroin meth head Tue lookin rough nik 7
Judy Gray Tue Realtruth 5
What If Someone Had A Felony 4 Could They Run F... Oct 16 Laws 2
Dennis Mowen to testify Oct 11 Tracker 8
Delk Oct 8 Hmmmm 1

West Union Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Union Mortgages