|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
Amarant (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 04:33 PM Original message |
How is this constitutional? (DOMA/House/Fed courts) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DebJ (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 04:33 PM Response to Original message |
1. I don't see how this could be done without an amendment to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Massacure (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 04:42 PM Response to Original message |
2. Supreme court will just slap them silly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amarant (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 04:44 PM Response to Reply #2 |
3. It's a paradox |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Massacure (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 04:55 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Congress cannot define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tabasco (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 05:02 PM Response to Reply #5 |
8. To the contrary... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tabasco (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 04:56 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. That's incorrect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amarant (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 05:01 PM Response to Reply #6 |
7. State courts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tabasco (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 05:09 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. State courts can strike down a federal law, but not finally. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 04:55 PM Response to Original message |
4. It's unconstitutional on its face |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amarant (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 05:03 PM Response to Reply #4 |
9. Hmm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
midwayer (719 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 05:07 PM Response to Reply #4 |
11. Not sure we have a Constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Feanorcurufinwe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 05:07 PM Response to Original message |
10. It's not. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tom_paine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-15-04 05:10 PM Response to Original message |
13. We DON'T HAVE a Constittuion. We have the New Totalitarianism |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu Apr 18th 2024, 11:39 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC