Re: The Need Of Guns

Joe Steel <NoSpam@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns9911DC2802717aa10021highstreamnet@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

Bearkiller <fastpat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:eIWTh.3745$Zm3.1702@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


That's utterly absurd.

The Declaration of Independence has absolutely no standing as a
"legal document."

Yes, it in fact does have standing and has been used by the SCOTUS.
You don't know anything about this do you?

You were trying to wing it and found out that you've no feathers with
which to do that.

Get used to it, there are knowledgeable people on the newsgroup.


The Supreme Court is authoritative because the Constitution makes it
authoritative not because its members are particularly insightful.

No, the Supreme Court has the onus of ruling on constitutionality of laws
because they assumed it in Marbuy v Madison in 1803 and it has been
accepted law since then.

RD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Need Of Guns
    ... it in fact does have standing and has been used by the ... The Supreme Court is authoritative because the Constitution makes ... allows the Supreme Court to have any authority over the Constitution? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: The Need Of Guns
    ... it in fact does have standing and has been used by the SCOTUS. ... The Supreme Court is authoritative because the Constitution makes it ... the Supreme Court assumed the role of interpreting the Constitution. ... Its authority to do anything comes from ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: The Need Of Guns
    ... it in fact does have standing and has been used by the ... The Supreme Court is authoritative because the Constitution makes ... allows the Supreme Court to have any authority over the Constitution? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: The Need Of Guns
    ... it in fact does have standing and has been used by the SCOTUS. ... The Supreme Court is authoritative because the Constitution makes it ... the Supreme Court assumed the role of interpreting the Constitution. ... the Supreme Court to have any authority over the Constitution? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Supreme Court Says NO Review of Citizenship
    ... But standing to raise the issue *in court* ordinarily requires a personal stake in the dispute, as the Federal courts have interpreted Article III's "cases" and "controversies" language to limit their jurisdiction to decide disputes. ... My point is that if the issue is whether the winner of a presidential election is indeed eligible to be president under the Constitution, if any one particular citizen doesn't have standing to sue, then I can so no ground on which anyone would have standing to sue. ...
    (misc.transport.road)