• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:28 AM
    The Greek playwright Aristophanes wrote about this tactic over 2400 years old. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
    21 replies | 534 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:41 AM
    It was granted "the judicial power of the United States" in Article III of the Constitution. At a minimum, that includes the authority to determine the law to be applied in a given case. And that authority has to include determining whether a statute violates the Constitution.
    17 replies | 470 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:34 AM
    It happened 57 years ago when several Justices relied on the 9th Amendment in striking down Connecticut's ban on contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. I agree the amendment could be misused by an activist Court majority, but unless you're prepared to argue that there are no unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution it's still good to have the amendment around. It sure as hell beats relying on "penumbras, formed by emanations" as a rationale.
    2 replies | 105 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-26-2022, 09:06 AM
    Sonny Tufts replied to a thread roe GONE in U.S. Political News
    Not really. The 9th Amendment provides "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Note that this doesn't refer to States' rights, but to rights retauined by the people. Maybe this includes the right to have sex with any consenting adult (other than a prostitute) in one's bedroom without the State of Texas butting in (no pun intended).
    66 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-26-2022, 08:55 AM
    Sonny Tufts replied to a thread roe GONE in U.S. Political News
    Thomas believes the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects procedural rights, not substantive ones and that the Court's historical reliance on the DP Clause to protect unenumerated substantive rights is wrong. Instead, he would look to the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause to incorporate the rights specified in the Bill of Rights and perhaps a few others that were viewed as privileges and immunities when the 14th was adopted. See discussion at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?530800-Our-Supreme-Court-the-rule-of-law-and-judicial-tyranny&p=6747297&highlight=Thomas#post6747297 He has a point. As Justice Scalia once noted, the concept of substantive due process is an oxymoron. In a case involving the retroactive application of a taxing provision he made this point and also noted the discrepancy between the Court's application of the DP Clause to property rights vs. other rights: But the Court essentially eviscerated the P&I Clause in The Slaughter House Cases in 1873, although most constitutional scholars believe the case was wrongly decided. If the Court were to jettison the idea of substantive due process it would need to resurrect the P&I Clause. But then the issue would be to determine what the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" are, aside from the rights specifically set forth in the Bill of Rights.
    66 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-25-2022, 09:52 AM
    Sonny Tufts replied to a thread roe GONE in U.S. Political News
    Obergfell, unlike Roe, had an Equal Protection element in its rationale, so I think it's easily distinguishable from Dobbs.
    66 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-24-2022, 03:22 PM
    If the South had been more productive and had been making more money than the North it would have won the war. It certainly grew more cotton but it had far less manufacturing capability. And it really doesn't matter how many people in the South owned slaves but rather what percentage of the South's economy was based on slave labor. One site claims that "In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined." https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm#:~:text=By%201860%2C%2090%20percent%20of,100%20produced%20in%20the%20South. If slavery had been "about over" none of the seceding States would have bitched so much about the North trying to get rid of it. EDIT: I'm not sure what the site referred to means by "invested value", but elsewhere it claims that the North had a wealth advantage of 73%-27% and an advantage of 68%-32% in the value of exports. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/north-and-south
    40 replies | 1164 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-24-2022, 03:12 PM
    My point had nothing to do with secession, but rather with TheTexan's references to Lincoln and the tyrants of today making "the same mistakes of the past". I could easily argue that the tyrants in 1860 were those who wanted to maintain slavery at all costs. Sure, they had other beefs with the North, but the biggest one was slavery. Some would say that the issue was States' Rights, but no government, state or federal, has the right to enslave people. For what it's worth, the only argument that has any teeth at all IMHO is the complaint that the Northern States' refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution and the Fugutive Slave Act of 1850. The failure to abide by the former could be viewed as a breach of the compact made upon the adoption of the Constituition, thereby entitling the Confederate States to secede. A similar argument was made by Madison to view the Articles of Confederation as no longer binding because many States had violated it. See Federalist 43. It's hard to see how allowing a State to secede makes its citizens more free if the State desires to enforce slavery or implement some other kind of repressive scheme. Suppose Utah were to amend its constitution to eliminate freedom of religion and adding a provision requiring each citizen and noncitizen located within the State to become a member of the Mormon Church and abide by its teachings under penalty of death. When told by the federal goverment that such a law would be unconstitutional, Utah secedes and begins to enforce the provision. Do you see the problem there? Or perhaps the rest of the country should just stand aside, and say "What a pity" or "Sorry your mother got executed Joe, but after all we're in Nevada and what goes on in Utah is none of our business. If they want to have a theocracy that makes Iran look like a libertarian paradise, so be it. After all, they have an inalienable right to secede." But whatever the theoretical merits of secession, it is extremely impractical unless, as I said earlier, you get a LOT of states to join in.
    40 replies | 1164 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-22-2022, 01:40 PM
    If you want to argue from history, you might want to remember that the States that seceded did so in order to be able to continue to enslave people. This isn't some sort of woke myth dreamed up by the 1619 Project; you should read the Texas secession resolution: Who was the real tyrant in 1861 -- Lincoln or the slaveowner?
    40 replies | 1164 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-22-2022, 08:05 AM
    I would say it's the people, not the states, who are the final arbiters. I would also say that Marbury v. Madison doesn't stand for the proposition that SCOTUS is the final arbiter on all constitutional issues. But it was the final arbiter in that case because it declined to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury was seeking. Since SCOTUS had been overruled at least three times by constitutional amendments it's clear it doesn't have the final word. Will we have to have another civil war to put this proposition to the test? As Justice Holmes once said in another context, upon this matter a page of history is worth a volume of logic. Theoretically, I suppose there would be a critical mass of states that, if they (and their citizens) wanted to leave the Union, could do so without armed conflict, but it would have to be pretty high. I respectfully disagree. First of all, I assume you're referring to the Motion for Leave to file a Bill of Complaint Texas filed; this was an original proceeding and not a certiorari matter. Second, the credulous pro-Trumpers who've taken over the Texas GOP (and those elsewhere) wouldn't have been mollified in the least if SCOTUS had granted a hearing, for two simple reasons: (a) the case would have been dismissed for lack of standing in any event, and (b) those who have swallowed Trump's lies about the election like so much Jim Jones Kool-Aid aren't going to change their minds no matter what.
    40 replies | 1164 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-21-2022, 07:46 AM
    Article III of the Constitution granted the "judicial Power of the United States" to the federal judiciary. At a minimum, doesn't this encompass the authority to determine the law to be applied in a given case? And if that's so, it would follow that it has the authority to decide to apply the Constitution instead of a statute that violates the Constitution. The States are free to call for a constitutional convention to get rid of judicial review if that's what they want. But be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it. A lot of folks who bitch about the Supreme Court's overturning laws as being unconstitutional also bitch about it when the Court doesn't. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?388028-What-are-the-worst-Supreme-Court-decisions-of-all-time&highlight=judicial+review
    40 replies | 1164 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-20-2022, 05:04 PM
    The Curse of Chief Wahoo https://thecamitee.com/trending/cleveland-indians-middle-finger-chief-wahoo-shirt-2/
    7 replies | 195 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,360
Posts Per Day
0.64
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 03:01 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

01-26-2021


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 71 1231151 ... LastLast

06-27-2022


06-25-2022


06-24-2022


06-23-2022


06-22-2022


06-21-2022


04-01-2022


03-29-2022


03-23-2022



Page 1 of 71 1231151 ... LastLast