View single post by TAD99
 Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 02:55 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
TAD99
Member
 

Joined: Tue Dec 25th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 9
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Ok come on at least make it a Stetson.  All kidding aside I think you are both right.  Prior to the 1960's we were under constitution law where the Supreme Court had to rule based on the Constitution or its Amendments.  Post 1960's however we are now under law based on the courts decisions.  The example given to me was that if the court was liberal then the enforcement was liberal and visa-versa.  I'm sure the Texas Defender could explain this better but the point is that the reason the Health law passed was not because it was based on the Constitution but based on what the courts saw a correct for today.

As to succession, it was a topic discussed by the states almost from the time the Constitution was signed so what the south did was in fact force the courts to make it clear what could and couldn't be tolerated.  Too bad so many people had to die and so much hate had to be created to define it.  In California with the same sex marriage fight, the Court ruled that because it was allowed for a short period of time, even the will of the people didn’t matter because we are now denying them rights they were granted.  That is a civil decision not a Constitutional one.  Now let’s not start another discussion here, I just used it as an example but you have a valid point.  Now that the health care bill had been passed and forced on the public, the government can now force any product on the public and cite it as the turning point that granted them the authority.