General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
The Humanist Report
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

@rdean150 my bad. No, that would not be free speech a the cop is now accessory to that crime and one, some of their rights are hindered and two, even at that him taking a bride does not look good for the cop. Just like some things you say does not look good in court. You know, freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences.
2
Voting on them would be a disaster. SC justices have to make very difficult decisions that are correct in the end. If you vote on them they will do what the people want at certain times as opposed to what is constitutional and equal to all.
2
@223Drone you know, in the Constitution women were not allowed to vote. What changed that? An amendment. Explain that.
2
The Constitution does say air waves can be regulated via the commerce clause and the 10th amendment. What would be unconstitutional would be to preventing that rich person from creating a radio transmitter and station to begin with.
1
How so? This is the correct ruling.
1
@223Drone how is this corruption?
1
@223Drone so if I volunteer to campaign for a certain politician, that politician wins, and I personally benefit from it in the end in some way, is that corruption?
1
@Rae Tavia money is speech in many ways. For example, ads cost money, traveling to campaign cost money, shirts, hats, signs, etc. cost money, Paying staffer cost money. AOC raised over $1 million to go from being a bartender to being in congress. Basically, there you have a little person rising up because of money being donated to her.
1
@Rae Tavia and to add, say I were to volunteer for a candidate, they were to win and I were to personally gain from their victory in some way. Is that corruption?
1
@josephheston9238 no, I actually come here and try to respect people despite the insults I receive.
1
@223Drone how do I refuse to argue in good faith? You are the one who goes straight to name calling and refuses to address any points I make. You say I am ignorant but do not explain how. So please, explain how?
1
@Rae Tavia it does. Ok, remove the money factor to a degree. Someone takes time off of work, and thus takes a pay cut, and decides to campaign for a candidate. Thus they are essentially spending money on that candidate. Not directly, but they are sacrificing money and time for that candidate. Again, why are you ignoring people volunteering for a candidate?
1
@223Drone who has explained things? Take the person who is saying money is not speech. I broke down how it is. People use money to create ads, hold rallies, create shirts, etc. Some people donate money to assist in that. Other volunteer time. So should people not be allowed to volunteer time? But when I explained to that person again that money is speech they just repeat that it is not with zero reasoning. They only kind of reasoning they give is that someone has more money they have more speech. Well, if someone has more time they have more time to volunteer and thus more speech. They do not address that. Are you going to address that?
1
@jmb3608 ok, and? Some people have more resources than others. That's life. No different than I had two supportive parents who allowed me to live in their home so I can finish college and get a high paying job. Compare to that with someone who had parents who did not care about them. It is the sad reality. Or how some people are born with some physical or mental disadvantage. That's life. You can complain about it all you want, or you can fight through it and work with it. Genetically alcoholism runs in my family and I suffered through it. I don't make it an excuse. Instead I fought through it. I can be like you, sit here, pound my fist and cry that life isn't fair. Or I can find a way. This is part of the reason why we have a system of a limited government, especially at the federal level. What I find to be ironic with the left is that you guys what more centralized government and then wonder why there is so much corruption, which exist more with democrats. That is why. The larger government is, the harder it is to control. The more local government is the easier it is to control. You want to alleviate corruption, limit the size of government. Limit the powers of the federal government with hard barriers and give more to local government.
1
@jmb3608 "fewer taxes, more tax breaks," This is a great example. For years the only federal taxes were import and export taxes and a tax on the states based on their population sizes. When a federal individual income tax was first proposed it was ruled unconstitutional. It took an amendment to pass it. Bad idea. Why? Now the federal government has the ability to create a complex tax code on the people with tax breaks. So while sure, they may give out child tax credits, and you may cheer them on for having that power. They also have the power to give out tax breaks to the rich. The average person has many tax breaks they do not use. Why? They do not have the resources to hire accountants and lawyers like a corporation or a rich person does. So you have politicians, especially on the left saying "see, we are giving the average person these tax breaks", which are vague and hard to interpret unless you have a lawyer and accountant, but also give tax breaks to the rich. What will solve that problem is either go back to the original system, or have a flat individual income tax with a consumption tax. Nothing else. Instead, people, especially on the left want to give the federal government all this power and then wonder why they are getting screwed.
1
@jmb3608 final note, if government, especially the federal government, has limited power, it has nothing to sell.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 this is campaign debt, not personal debt.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 to answer your question, the law. The IRS does look at that. Just like if you buy something for the business you own it is a tax write off. But if you use it for personal gain that is breaking the law.
1
@223Drone why do you refuse to give me examples in how I am factually wrong? It was campaign debt. The record says so.
1
This is free speech. Here is the logic. Holding rallies cost money. Creating ads cost money. Creating signs, shirts and hats cost money.
1
@Rae Tavia it does. I want to create an ad for a politician. I don't have money to do it. So I work, get the money, and then create the ad. If the government stops the ad that violates free speech.
1
@Rae Tavia that is how free speech works. If I have the money to create an ad the government cannot stop me. Or if I volunteer to campaign for someone, the government cannot stop me. "besdies there are people with more money than another person free speech is meant to be equal for everyone" 100% incorrect. Some people have more free time to attend rallies, volunteer to campaign, etc. So by that they have more "free speech". All free speech does is prevent government from hindering it. It does not guarantee it. "for one person to have more money therefore more speech violates this rule" 100% false. You are not addressing the volunteer issue I am bringing up. I work well over 40 hours a week. Say someone does not work. That someone has more time to campaign for their candidate thus they have more free speech. Are you going to address that?
1
@rdean150 wow, insults from the left. Why am I not surprised? I bet you are vaccinated 20 times, wear 4 masks, and hide under your blankets in fear of covid.
1
@jmb3608 corporations can only be successful if they provide what people want. Many corporations ended up go under. And money is a form of speech.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 no, people are still free.
1
@223Drone and if you want that limit the powers of the federal government so it has nothing to sell. The more local government is the more it serves the people. I agree with you on this one. Your solution is not Constitutional nor feasible because as long as you give the federal government that kind of power they will abuse it where it benefits the rich.
1
@223Drone people like you want to give the federal government all this power and when you do you scratch your head wondering why they keep getting bought out.
1
@223Drone and if the federal government had limited powers, what would people have to buy? You missed the point on how I said people like you want to give the federal government all this power. Well, when you give them this power what do you think will happen? People will buy it.
1
Not surprise leftists are not screaming that when they bring up climate change.
1
@LittleAl016 at the rate Biden is going Trump has a great chance to win again, unless the dems steal another election.
1
@LittleAl016 not really. There are loopholes. One, republicans can win the house and then promote Trump as speaker. From there Biden can be deemed unfit as president and if they can find a way to get Harris removed, which there are routes to do so, now you have Trump as president. He can then run again as president. It is in the 22nd amendment. There are talks of the democrats exploiting it to get Harris to be three terms. After one day of Biden's 2nd year of his first term he can step down and Harris can be president for 10 years.
1
@LittleAl016 how so, please explain. It is written in the 22nd amendment.
1
@LittleAl016 "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Breaking it down, on the part that says "and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." That means if Harris were to replace Biden with less than 2 years left in his 1st term, she can run for two more terms because she replaced the current president but for less than two years.
1
@Rae Tavia read the 22nd amendment.
1
@LittleAl016 ok, now here "or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President" To again, breaking it down. Biden is president. he is the "elected president". If he serves 2 years and day and steps down, Harris becomes president and becomes the "acted president". But since she would have been the acted president for less than two years as opposed to "more than two years to which some other person was elected President (Biden in this case), she can run more than once. How is this so hard to understand?
1
@LittleAl016 how am I wrong? I laid it out for you. Again, Biden is the elected president. If he steps down after 2 years and 1 day Harris takes over. She will then serve a term of less than 2 years. Since she did not serve a term of "for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President" (again, Biden is the current elected President) she can run more than once. Really, it is that simple.
1
This is free speech. There are many ways to express speech. One is going door to door, another is to donate money to create ads, pay to hold rallies, etc.
1
@hughmiller7127 the poor do have a right to free speech. The can campaign, they can write an article, they can attend rallies. Also, free speech simply means government can't restrict you from speech, it does not guarantee it. So no, Bezos does not have more rights than others. And no, you can't pay for support of murder as murder laws apply equally to everyone. Define "harms others".
1
@rdean150 no, as the man is suspected of doing a crime, and via due process, you have some of your rights limited. Cops can't just arrest people, but they can if you are suspected of a crime. Thus, that man will be committing another crime. However, they do have a right to remain silence and with their money they can afford a nice lawyer.
1
@rdean150 to add, consider this. When being arrested you do not have to say anything, but what you say can be used against you. Even if not a crime, info coming out that you tried to bribe a cop can be used against you. The jury and judge will question that in if you were innocent, why bribe the police?
1
@rdean150 no did they not. What crimes are being committed? As I said in your case, if you, as the cop knows someone is committing a crime and you do nothing you are now just as guilty as they are. Doesn't matter if you are paid off or not. Say you were the guy's best friend instead, it is the same thing.
1
@rdean150 there is a fine line between a bribe and support of a campaign. Many support candidates by volunteering. Is that considered a bride?
1
@j0j0dartiste21 " op unironically believes some people are inherently more valuable than others because of what they earn." That is the harsh reality in life. Resources are limited in the end.
1
@rdean150 that isn't what it is about. There was a loan pulled out by Cruz to campaign. Not a personal loan, but a loan related to his campaign. People who support his campaign gave Cruz money to help pay off that loan. Again, not a personal loan, one related to his campaign. This isn't like he got a loan for a house and is now using campaign funds to pay it off. That would be illegal.
1
@rdean150 they have a separate account only for the campaign. Just like in a business, a business owner has their business account and a personal one. If someone buys something for the business they use their business account and get tax write offs. If for personal they use their personal. If they use the business account for a personal expense that would be illegal. "Would a vehicle that you use to get to your campaign rallies count as being "for the campaign"?" Depends. How many miles? I have a company vehicle. I use it only for work. I use my personal vehicle for personal situations. If I were to use the company vehicle for personal situations I have to report the mileage compared to the total mileage. It becomes a tax issue. Or a company. If they have a company vehicle they can only use it for company situations, not personal. "What if you also happen to drive your kids to school with it, and get groceries with it?" Then those mileage are personal mileage. And if I recall, if it is over 50% then it is a personal vehicle, not business, in the business world. Don't know the campaign world. "Would your haircuts, clothing, dry cleaning, lunches, snacks, dinners, toothpaste, soap, and cell phone bill count as being "for the campaign"? How about courtside tickets to an NBA game, or a flight to Miami over spring break?" Well, actually, something like court side tickets to an NBA would count if it is directly related to a campaign. Just like in business can bring clients there. On haircuts, that is too general, same with toothpaste and soap. On cell phone bills, as with work and work phones, which I have, as long as that cell phone is only used for the campaign you are good. You see, it isn't like these politicians are just spending money. They have separate accounts. The IRS tracks this closely.
1
@rdean150 it depends. Many companies to pay back college loans, so there is that. Many laws get overturned. Jim Crow was law at one point. Sure, a politician can take out huge loans, just like someone can take out huge college loans. Or a person can take out a huge business loan. It is all similar. But here is the thing, college loans can only be spent on certain things. Just like business loans can only be spent on the business.
1
@rdean150 to answer your question, yes. Am I saying I feel it is good? No. And this leads to another point. Here is where I try to stick to my principle. I feel money is speech. With that said, I do say corruption occurs. Now how do you alleviate corruption? I say limit the powers of the federal government so it has nothing to sell. And give more powers to the local government where they serve the people more. The more local the government the more it serves the people as people see first hand how their local government is functioning. The problem is that we expanded the federal government's power so it can be bought as now it has something to sell.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 here is an idea, limit the powers of the federal government and it can't be bought.
1
@223Drone how am I factually wrong?
1
Typical leftist, cries that there is a problem but provides no solution. This is a matter of free speech.
1
They did not change the law, they ruled it unconstitutional.
1
@loug2414 being fair, I don't fully agree mocking these people but instead trying to engage with them explaining why this ruling is correct. However, how the left has been acting the past few years, how they treated Trump and lied about him, how they created the scamdemic in covid, how they rigged the election and mocked Trump supporters, and how they keep defending Biden who is clearly lost out there, they kind of deserve it. A reason why Trump lost is now illogical the left has become and just wines and complain when they don't get their way.
1
@223Drone so you rather have the majority tell the minority what to do? You do know that is how slavery happened, and then Jim Crow laws. Why are you a racist?
1
@LittleAl016 the why do you support Biden? If you think Biden and Trump are the same at least under Trump people had money.
1
@hughmiller7127 SC justices should not be voted on. At times they have to make unpopular but correct decisions.
1
@hughmiller7127 making them lifetime appointments alleviates they making decisions that benefit them financially. It you have term limits they will make decisions that will benefit them when they have to step down. They should not be chosen by the people. If you make the route where they will be trying to get on the bench serving the masses as opposed to doing what is correct in the Constitution which one purpose of it is the make the people equal in the eyes of the law. Times may change, but the basic principle and ideas do not. People are treated as equals in the eyes of the law. If you had people voting on justices some people will have more rights than others.
1
@camwyn256 From Cornell Law "The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each."
1
@LittleAl016 where is abortion mentioned in any form in the constitution? Nowhere, thus it gets kicked to the states via the 10th amendment like police, domestic law, education, etc.
1
@223Drone if you want such laws either one, set it up at the state level or two, create a Constitutional amendment. Yes, times change, and there were methods in place to make changes. Instead of setting the dangerous grounds of making things up, use the system in place to make changes because there are ways to make such changes.
1
@Rae Tavia it is though "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." Wow, that sounds like judicial review to me. That sounds like the SC has the power to look at law and equity. So uh, cased closed here. What else do you have? " Great so that means congress or the president can say "no you don't have the power of judicial review" and that would be the end of it" No, because it is written out in Article III Section 2 pretty clear. If as in "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" That seems pretty clear to me.
1
@Rae Tavia "also because of the 10th amendment which you like to state, because its not expressively stated in the constitution that the supreme court has this power, Marbury vs madision is invalid." Nope, Article III Section 2 seems pretty clear to me. The SC has the power to look at laws.
1
@Rae Tavia here is the thing, each section of the federal government and their duties are laid out in detail. Also, you say "judicial review', well, you have "judicial power" and that a part of that power is to extend cases in law etc.
1
@223Drone how am I contradicting myself? You said times change. So I responded that yes, and there are ways to make such changes. You can change laws at the state level. If you want to make it a federal one you can create a Constitutional amendment. "You were openly using the "states rights" nonsense to justify banning abortion and the "states rights" argument was used to justify slavery. " Abortion is not listed as a right in the Constitution so it gets kicked to the states. Slavery, due to changing times was.......wait for it........banned via a Constitutional amendment. "You're basically saying it should okay for states to ban things such as interracial marriage and contraceptives" Contraceptives sure, I defend their RIGHT to do that. Same as I defend their RIGHT to ban abortion. What is funny is I won't agree with either. But I have principle and I support their rights over centralized power. On interracial marriage guess what, the 14th amendment prevents states from banning that. You know, another Constitutional amendment added.
1
@223Drone so again, where are my contradictions?
1
@LittleAl016 where in those amendment does it guarantee a woman's right to one? Point to me in those amendments. Based on how you cannot read and understand the 22nd one this will be good.
1
@Rae Tavia no, it says "judicial power" to extend case to law. Again "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity" That means the SC can pick up a case related to a law and make a ruling. So again, how is my argument invalid? You are looking for "judicial review" where I see Article III Section 2 stating the SC can extend a case related to law thus they can make a ruling on a law. Seems pretty clear to me.
1
@UC-XQzC-v20BMohziodaq8Nw but they have the power to pick up any case relate to a law. Thus they can determine if a law is constitutional or not. So seems pretty clear to me. Define "judicial review" why don't you?
1
@LittleAl016 you do know privacy is not protected in the Constitutional? For example, if I commit a crime the government can investigate me.
1
@Rae Tavia define "judicial review". Maybe when you start to define that things will become clear to you.
1
@Rae Tavia to add, extend it to this video. Cruz broke a law. The law was picked up by the SC because they have the judicial power to do that in "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law" And they made a ruling. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
1
@Rae Tavia so you can't define it. So you have nothing. You don't even know what judicial review means, so why bring it up?
1
@Rae Tavia no, they can pick up any law, again "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law" But go farther "to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof" Seems like they can pick up a lot.
1
@Rae Tavia but if you want to go down that then rulings like Brown v Board should be overturned based on your standard.
1
@Rae Tavia so why don't you tell me what it means? You brought it up. I just countered and showed you what is in the Constitution exactly. I even quoted you an article from Cornell Law.
1
@Rae Tavia ok, so what does judicial review mean? You brought it up. You saying you don't know is all I need to know. You brought up an irrelevant point.
1
@Rae Tavia and then who determines if those laws are Constitutional? And again, what does judicial review mean?
1
@Rae Tavia ok, what is judicial review? And you do know that is not what the supremacy clause says? Sorry, but you don't want to go down two wrong paths. Also, why have a Constitution if there is not a body to decide if a law or action is constitutional?
1
@Rae Tavia oh, BTW, "supremacy clause" is not written in the Constitution. So you are contradicting yourself.
1
@Rae Tavia but but but, supremacy clause is not in the Constitution.
1
@Rae Tavia but but but, "supremacy clause" is not in the Constitution?
1
@Rae Tavia and there is no mention of "supremacy clause" in the Constitution. Thus you contradicted yourself.
1
@Rae Tavia " Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that" I don't see "supremacy clause" there. I am confused now.
1
@hughmiller7127 "So by your argument, we should take away women right to vote, since it's not in the consitution. " Actually it is, it is in the 19th amendment. "Also denie Hispanic, gay, and native American right to vote too" Actually the 14th amendment covers that.
1
@hughmiller7127 sure, they are being picked on their stance, but you have that pesky Senate to balance it out. Uh, what justice does not know what email is? Besides, justices hire assistance to work for them, most know what email is. And for justices staying on for a long time, not everything is perfect. But again, if you put on term limits justices will make decisions that will benefit them when they are off the bench. As with them not being voted on by the people, they are lifetime appointments as they have to make, at times, unpopular decisions that are correct in the end. Roe v Wade was an incorrect ruling. It was literally legislating from the bench. Talking to a lawyer he told me at the time there was nothing in the Constitution to support it. However, at that time women were dying doing abortions in the bathrooms. As bad as that is, the SC should not legislate from the bench. And this is ironic, you are supporting the idea of justices legislating from the bench while at the same time they should have term limits. So a justice can create a law on the bench that will benefit them when they step down? Plus, how was Roe v Wade ruling correct? You saying it is but does not give reasons why.
1
@hughmiller7127 there is a method to change the constitution, you do know that?
1
@223Drone again, there is a method to change the Constitution.
1
@Rae Tavia so commonly referred to as the supremacy clause? So ok, Article III Section 2 is known as judicial review. Agreed?
1
@Rae Tavia and no, federal law, in many ways, does not take president over state laws. From Cornell Law "Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect." That is why, for example, the federal government cannot sent in federal troops in a state to enforce domestic law. You did know that? Not very smart are ya. But hey, where is "supremacy clause" written in the Constitution?
1
@Rae Tavia so, by your standard, with "supremacy clause" not being written in the Constitution, everything you wrote about federal law overriding state law is irrelevant, agree?
1
@Rae Tavia I guess I stumped you.
1
@223Drone "Both interracial marriage and abortion were declared constitutional despite the fact neither of them were written were specifically mentioned in the constitution." Abortion was the incorrect ruling, similar to Plessy v Ferguson was. That is why we have the current potential ruling on Roe v Wade. Just like Plessy v Ferguson was overturned later. Plessy v Ferguson was ruled despite the 14th amendment existing. So based on your standard Plessy v Ferguson should have never been overturned meaning Brown v Board and the ruling of interracial marriage were incorrect because of the Plessy v Ferguson ruling in the past. " Roe Vs Wade explains why abortion is protected by the constitution." It actually doesn't. It doesn't cite anything directly in the Constitution. You bring up interracial marriage, it directed cited text in the 14th amendment. But again, based on your standard that ruling was incorrect because Plessy v Ferguson was ruled in the past. But as usual, you are not going to address anything of that.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 and I agree, and the courts overturned them.
1
@Rae Tavia "Judical review is not the same as judicial power. But the supremacy clause and article IV are interchangeable" How so? Your argument on Judicial review is that it is not directly written in the constitution where I said it is implied. But then you bring up supremacy clause. So I turn around and say it is not directly written in the constitution, so by your standard it is implied which is my standard on judicial review. So you are 100% inconsistent right now. So either something has to be directly written in the constitution to give a branch of the federal government certain powers, like judicial review in what you are saying. Or it can be implied with certain branches of government like you are saying with the supremacy clause and I said with judicial review. What is it?
1
@Rae Tavia "no where does it expand or explicitly said they also have the power of judicial review. " And Article VI does not explicitly say supremacy clause. Again, you are inconsistent. "They just have the power to interpret the federal and state laws not the constitution." Exactly, and in the case of this video they determined this law being pushed on Cruz is unconstitutional. Or federal laws on abortion are unconstitutional and thus are left to the states. I think you are slowly getting it. There is hope for you yet.
1
@Rae Tavia "They just have the power to interpret the federal and state laws not the constitution." Interpret state laws how? Also, that seems like judicial review to me.
1
@Rae Tavia but "supremacy clause" is not written in the Constitution. So by your standard it does not exist. The same argument you made for judicial review. You are saying the supremacy clause is implied by Article VI where I said judicial review is implied by Article which is my standard. You are inconsistent.
1
@Rae Tavia considering you never defined judicial review it appears you do not know what it means. You did not explain how saying "supremacy clause" is not a contradiction because to you it has to be written in the Constitution or it does not exist. "cant seem to understand states that federal law overides state law." Not really. Read the quote from the Cornell Law article I gave. Via the 10th amendment states create their own laws. Federal laws are restricted by the constitution. It is one reason why the federal government cannot send in federal troops to enforce domestic laws without consent of the state governor. "When a state passes a law that violates federal law the courts will strike it down." Uh, the courts, the judicial system reviews the law. Hmmmm........that sounds like judicial review to me. "Why don't you look up what i means since i think you don't know what judicial review actually is." You brought it up, you define it for me.
1
@Rae Tavia "again they don't have the power to determine whether something is unconstitutional or not that can only interpret federal law " Interpret federal law how? Based on the constitution. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, " Hmmm.......
1
@Rae Tavia you never explained how judicial review works. And with supremacy clause you just stated a phrase that is not even in the Constitution, so it is irrelevant based on your standards.
1
@Rae Tavia "Implied powers are not actually powers that the constiutition grants " OK, same with the supremacy clause. Agree?
1
@Rae Tavia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjCQ3T5yXo You are Peter Gibbins in this situation, arguing in circles.
1
@Rae Tavia In never brought up judicial review. I simply pointed out the role of the SC. You brought up judicial review, so you define it just like you are trying to define supremacy clause.
1
@Rae Tavia how am I not here to debate in an honest fashion? You brought up judicial review. So I simply asked you to define it. You either can't or refuse to. You mentioned that the courts look at and interpret laws. Well, that seems like the judicial system is reviewing laws. Hmmmm.......sounds like judicial review. Until you give me a definition on it that is all we have to go off it. You saying "that is not judicial review" and nothing else is not a rebuttal. You saying "I know you won't win" is me pushing you in a corner. How? Read carefully here. You said "judicial review" is not explicitly written in the Constitution, so it does not exist. I came back with two rebuttals. One, it is implied while citing Cornell Law, and two, asking you to define it. You refuse to define it and ignore my Cornell Law quote. Next, you bring up the supremacy clause. I come back saying that is not explicitly written in the Constitution, so based on your standard with judicial review it is irrelevant. You come back saying it is implied, which is what I said about judicial review. So now what is it? Does it have to be explicitly written in the Constitution or can it be implied? Also, on Article VI section 2, you ignored my Cornell Law quote there as well.
1
@Rae Tavia So to recap, you ignored my two quotes from Cornell Law, one of the top law schools in the nation. You contradicted yourself on something being explicitly written in the Constitution vs being implied You refuse to define judicial review or do not know what it means. So who is not having an honest debate?
1
@Rae Tavia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjCQ3T5yXo Again, you are Peter Gibbins in this situation.
1
@223Drone how am I factually wrong? You saying I am without examples means you have nothing.
1
@Rae Tavia I like how you just ran away. You know, just defining what is "judicial review" would have gained some respect from me. Why was it that hard to do?
1
@223Drone so why do you run away from me bud?
1