Best Supreme Court ruling (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 12:31:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Best Supreme Court ruling (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Best Supreme Court ruling  (Read 5411 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« on: January 02, 2005, 07:18:34 PM »

Hard to say. I can't remember the Supreme Court doing anything right, but I haven't really studied it.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2005, 07:49:19 PM »


Ah, yes, I forgot about that one.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2005, 10:00:02 PM »

Yes, he is.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2005, 10:46:02 PM »

What constitutional amendment superseded it?

And States, what constitutional amendments do you recognize?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2005, 10:57:09 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_v._Union_Pacific_Railroad

Wikipedia says about that same Supreme Court ruling: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld the federal income tax of the United States by stating that the 16th Amendment prevented the re-characterization of a tax on income from the class of indirect taxes to which it inherently belonged to that of direct taxes by considering the source of the income. The decision was handed down on January 24, 1916.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2005, 01:12:03 PM »

Judges aren't supposed to decide what a ing idiotic and asinine law is. The multi-thousand page federal tax code is ing idiotic and asinine, but you don't see right-wing judges striking it down. That's why we elect legislators.

The federal government has no power to decide that States can't regulate non-commercial, consensual sexual activity between adults.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2005, 01:24:33 PM »

Civil disobedience can be honorable, but not when you took an oath to uphold the law.

I don't find an inherit right to privacy in any of the amendments you mention; and if it is found in so many places, I find it odd that they would never come out and say it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.