• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: United States in the constitution means the United States Government

On Nov 7, 6:27 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net>
wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 7:49 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 6, 6:34 am, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Nov 5, 10:22 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>correct, that is what the supreme court is for. OBTW,
the supreme
> >>>>>>>court over rules all state courts:)
>
> >>>>>>No, it doesn't.  It only overrules in cases involving
the Constit
ution.
> >>>>>>The US supreme Court has NO judicial power whatsoever in
purely sta
te
> >>>>>>issues.
>
> >>>>>unless its taken all of the way to the supreme court.
> >>>>>here is the article,
>
> >>>>Franks did qualify his claim "involving the
Constitution".  That is
, if
> >>>>the "purely state issue" is not implicated by the
Constitution, feder
al
> >>>>law or treaty, then he is correct.  For example, the
Massachusetts 
court
> >>>>ruling mandating same-sex marriage is not subject to appeal to
federa
l
> >>>>courts.
>
> >>> unless someone decides to appeal it all the way to the supreme court,
> >>>and if the court accepts the appeal, and rules against the state, then
> >>>it voids the starte law as unconstitutional. we saw recently a case of
> >>>state eminent domain taken all the way to the supreme court.
>
> >>Because the Fifth Amendment was implicated.  What amendment, federal
> >>statute, or treaty would the appellants use as the basis for appealing
> >>Goodridge in a federal court?
>
> >  of course you are speaking of one certain law. i am speaking of any
> > state law that comes into conflict with federal law, regulation, or
> > treaty, or is appealed to a higher court, which you are ignoring.
>
> I specifically said that if "purely state issue" means the state law
> does not conflict with federal law, regulation, treaty or the
> Constitution - then the end of the line is the state supreme court.  Yo
u
> don't disagree with that?
>
> Josh Rosenbluth

you keep ignoring the fact that any state law can be appealed. if
the law gets appealed into a federal court, then it may not be a state
law for long. you can come up with all sorts of state law that has not
successfully been challenged, and that is how it works. but, lots of
state law has been successfully challenged, and its no longer a state
law, its now federal law.
the problem with fundamentalists is that they have OCD, and ignore
reality.

Antworten