OVERTURN BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION!

[Jose Fly]

Except, I fully agree with this.

Good.

Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade and the homosexual "marriage" ruling were not instantiations of this faculty. They were something else entirely.

You disagree with me?

Then please, cite the constitutional amendment which specifically mentions segregation.

As I described previously, a specific word does not need to be in the Constitution in order for one of the legal concepts that are in the Constitution to apply to it. To demonstrate this we can cite all sorts of recent Supreme Court rulings that apply constitutional legal concepts to modern issues.

In the Brown v. Board of Education case, the court ruled that segregation laws violated the Constitutional rights of black citizens, namely their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Under your reasoning, a state could pass a law banning red heads from holding public office and since the words "red head" isn't in the Constitution, there would be no legal recourse for red heads to argue that their constitutional rights have been violated.

 

[Traditio]

As I described previously, a specific word does not need to be in the Constitution in order for one of the legal concepts that are in the Constitution to apply to it. To demonstrate this we can cite all sorts of recent Supreme Court rulings that apply constitutional legal concepts to modern issues.

In the Brown v. Board of Education case, the court ruled that segregation laws violated the Constitutional rights of black citizens, namely their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Yes. And this goes back to my original point:

It's this kind of treatment of the constitution, i.e., of 9 lawyers thinking that they can make the constitution (with its very vague language) say whatever they want it to say, that's gotten us Roe v. Wade and the homosexual "marriage" ruling.

There is no right to privacy spelled out in the constitution, except insofar as the States legislate such a thing.

There is no sense in which integration is a "protection" in any relevant legal sense, except insofar as the States legislate such a thing.

There is no sense in which getting married to someone of the opposite sex or getting "married" to someone of the same sex is a "protection" in any relevant legal sense, except insofar as the States legislate and determine such a thing.

You'll disagree with me, but I'll only point out that for the sake of logical coherence, there are two options:

1. We go with your view of the court, and Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, etc. all follow.

2. We go with my view, i.e., the conservative view, and we MUST disagree with Brown v. Board of Education.

It really doesn't make sense that conservatives are cool with that ruling.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's this kind of treatment of the constitution, i.e., of 9 lawyers thinking that they can make the constitution (with its very vague language) say whatever they want it to say, that's gotten us Roe v. Wade and the homosexual "marriage" ruling.

Again, it is the specifically-identified role of the US Supreme Court justices to rule on matters of the Constitution. We both agreed to that. In Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs argued that the segregation laws violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Thus, under the framework you agreed to, it was entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

There is no right to privacy spelled out in the constitution, except insofar as the States legislate such a thing.

There is no sense in which integration is a "protection" in any relevant legal sense, except insofar as the States legislate such a thing.

There is no sense in which getting married to someone of the opposite sex or getting "married" to someone of the same sex is a "protection" in any relevant legal sense, except insofar as the States legislate and determine such a thing.

That may be what you believe, but that only matters to you (especially if you are unable to convince any court).

It really doesn't make sense that conservatives are cool with that ruling.

Then you should get to work convincing conservatives of your views.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And by "the constitution," you mean "whatever it is that these 9 lawyers feel like reading into the constitution on the given day, depending upon their mood."

Your church does it. They established the president for taking something in black and white and reading into it all kinds of "traditions" that are simply not there. Why is it okay for your church to do that to something God gave us but it is not okay for men to do that with someting men gave us?

 

[rexlunae]

If the courts have the right to tell a man that his children have to go to school with the children of non-white persons, then there is no legal reason why the courts shouldn't think of themselves as having the right to tell a bakery owner that he must sell cakes to homos.

The courts have the ultimate authority to interpret the law, at both the federal and state levels. That's not a states' rights issue, although it may be an issue of federal supremacy. I guess if the states didn't buy into the idea of federal supremacy, it's a little strange that they signed on to a constitution with it spelled out for them.

 

[Traditio]

The courts have the ultimate authority to interpret the law, at both the federal and state levels.

The courts have a right to apply the law. Reading a piece of legislation is not like reading religious scriptures. It's more like reading a rulebook.

If someone claimed to have "discovered" a new rule in the monopoly rulebook 100 years later, even though the official monopoly rulebook interpreters insisted, 50 years previously, that x way of playing monopoly is the appropriate way to play, I'd call that person with the new interpretation either a liar or a crazy person.

Or else, someone with a personal agenda.

That's not a states' rights issue, although it may be an issue of federal supremacy. I guess if the states didn't buy into the idea of federal supremacy, it's a little strange that they signed on to a constitution with it spelled out for them.

Why wouldn't they have signed onto it? The role of the courts was conceived and understood as fairly minimal. It wasn't even really considered much of a "thing" until the Madison court.

 

[Traditio]

Your church does it. They established the president for taking something in black and white and reading into it all kinds of "traditions" that are simply not there. Why is it okay for your church to do that to something God gave us but it is not okay for men to do that with someting men gave us?

This has nothing to do with the topic of my thread. The two cases are nothing alike.

 

[Traditio]

Again, it is the specifically-identified role of the US Supreme Court justices to rule on matters of the Constitution. We both agreed to that. In Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs argued that the segregation laws violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Thus, under the framework you agreed to, it was entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

It's entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to apply black letter law. The constitution is one of those sources of black letter law. That's literally all that I agreed to.

"They are violating our extremely vague and unspecified right that explicitly has nothing to do with schools" is not the same thing as "They are violating our rights as laid out in this particular law, which explicitly forbids discrimination in school."

The court's role is to apply black letter law. They are not a legislative body.

Period.

 

[rexlunae]

The courts have a right to apply the law. Reading a piece of legislation is not like reading religious scriptures. It's more like reading a rulebook.

I'd say that you're potentially wrong about the interpretation of both, depending on who you ask. But then, it's not really in your nature to admit an obvious ambiguity.

If someone claimed to have "discovered" a new rule in the monopoly rulebook 100 years later, even though the official monopoly rulebook interpreters insisted, 50 years previously, that x way of playing monopoly is the appropriate way to play, I'd call that person with the new interpretation either a liar or a crazy person.

The Constitution itself admits to being an incomplete set of principles. Treating it as if it is exhaustive is self-contradictory. The United States, like the UK, is a common law country, which means that a history of interpretation (case law) actually possesses legal force and authority. This is inherently incremental. So while it may seem strange to find a right against segregation in the middle of the Twentieth century, a full century after the adoption of the relevant Constitutional provisions, it's still perfectly consistent with how American law has been practiced historically, under the Constitution and under preceding systems.

Why wouldn't they have signed onto it? The role of the courts was conceived and understood as fairly minimal. It wasn't even really considered much of a "thing" until the Madison court.

And yet, the Constitution placed federal law quite clearly above state law. If the states signed on without believing that those provisions would one day come into force, it's their mistake.

 

[Jonahdog]

It's entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to apply black letter law. The constitution is one of those sources of black letter law. That's literally all that I agreed to.

Define "black letter law"

 

[rexlunae]

It's entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to apply black letter law. The constitution is one of those sources of black letter law. That's literally all that I agreed to.

"They are violating our extremely vague and unspecified right that explicitly has nothing to do with schools" is not the same thing as "They are violating our rights as laid out in this particular law, which explicitly forbids discrimination in school."

The court's role is to apply black letter law. They are not a legislative body.

Period.

The Constitution does not contain a lot of black letter laws. It describes, in not much detail, several broad concepts, which the courts must flesh out into actual applications.

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Can you tell me what that means in full detail? If you can, and can do so persuasively and authoritatively, you've accomplished something no jurist ever has.

 

[quip]

Then please, cite the constitutional amendment which specifically mentions segregation.

By design and implementation, the ninth.

 

[theophilus]

Black Letter Law refers to the basic standard elements or principles of law, which are generally known and free from doubt or dispute. It describes the basic principles of law that are accepted by a majority of judges in most states. For example, it can be the standard elements for a contract or the technical definition of assault. In American legal system it also means well-established case law. http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/black-letter-law/

 

[CabinetMaker]

This has nothing to do with the topic of my thread. The two cases are nothing alike.

They are identical. I'm not surprised that you fail to see that, though.

 

[Crucible]

Liberals are abusers of the law. We've seen it over the past decade especially- and when it comes to the Constitution, they 'reinterpret' it

They've contradicted the Constitution with itself. For example:

 

[Jonahdog]

Liberals are abusers of the law. We've seen it over the past decade especially- and when it comes to the Constitution, they 'reinterpret' it

They've contradicted the Constitution with itself. For example:

ah, like Citizens United? Corporations are people? Consider that a liberal driven decision?

It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to apply black letter law. The constitution is one of those sources of black letter law. That's literally all that I agreed to.

Right. When a plaintiff claims that a law violates their constitutional rights, it is the Supreme Court justice's job to determine if that claim is true.

"They are violating our extremely vague and unspecified right that explicitly has nothing to do with schools" is not the same thing as "They are violating our rights as laid out in this particular law, which explicitly forbids discrimination in school."

This is really quite simple. The plaintiffs argued that segregation laws violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law, as laid out in the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The justices, in fulfilling their constitutional role, ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs were correct and the states had violated their constitutional rights.

That's how the system was designed to work.

The court's role is to apply black letter law.

Where is that described in the Constitution? Be specific.

They are not a legislative body.

I don't believe anyone said they were.