If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Rand Paul: The Supreme Court doesn't get to decide what's Constitutional and what's not   (reason.com) divider line 289
    More: Stupid, Rand Paul, supreme courts, t-800, Faustian  
•       •       •

5689 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 1:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



289 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-28 12:57:16 PM  
Pardon me if I choose not to go to a dentist for expert advice on the U.S. Constitution. Especially since he apparently missed Article III, section 2.
 
2012-06-28 12:58:28 PM  
Well then, I don't know what they even exist for.
 
2012-06-28 01:01:59 PM  
Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.
 
2012-06-28 01:02:03 PM  
So Rand Paul is actually the guy from the Onion article.
 
2012-06-28 01:05:27 PM  
Marbury v. Madison, Mr. Paul.
 
2012-06-28 01:13:11 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


No, he's not correct. Not even technically.

The Congress can't overrule a Supreme Court decision AT ALL...because Congress can't enact amendments.

All the Congress can do is PROPOSE amendments and submit those proposals to the States. If 3/4 of the States adopt a proposal, the Constitution is amended. Of course, the States don't have to wait for the Congress; the States -- through convention -- can propose amendments on their own.
 
2012-06-28 01:14:53 PM  

xenophon10k: Pardon me if I choose not to go to a dentist for expert advice on the U.S. Constitution. Especially since he apparently missed Article III, section 2.


I like you.
 
2012-06-28 01:15:57 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


Last time I checked, only 3/4 of the States can override the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. But then again I've actually read the thing.
 
2012-06-28 01:16:03 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


Also, it's Article V that sets out the procedure for amendments:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
 
2012-06-28 01:16:12 PM  

Actually, @SenRandPaul, the Supreme Court ruling something is Constitutional does, in fact, make it Constitutional.

- Josiah Bartlet (@Pres_Bartlet) June 28, 2012
 
2012-06-28 01:18:09 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


...

<Shakes head>
 
2012-06-28 01:18:51 PM  

eraser8: ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.

Also, it's Article V that sets out the procedure for amendments: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress


And that's ignoring the fact that if you have to change the constitution to allow something, then it was clearly unconstitutional in the first place.
 
2012-06-28 01:19:37 PM  
You know, I've been saying for years that I'm wondering when the originalists would start rejecting Marbury v. Madison because it created a power in the Judicial branch that did not exist in the text of the Constitution.
 
2012-06-28 01:21:40 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO.
 
2012-06-28 01:24:33 PM  
Do you think his followers care about silly things like facts?
 
2012-06-28 01:25:21 PM  
And this is the guy the GOP wants to be a Mormon heartbeat away from the Presidency?
 
2012-06-28 01:26:36 PM  

Chariset: Do you think his followers care about silly things like facts?


They're currently headed to Canada- land of the free- I hear
 
2012-06-28 01:31:09 PM  
If only there were a court, a higher court, if you will, that could rule upon such things.
 
2012-06-28 01:31:16 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


1. That's not how it works.
2. That's not how it works.
3. That's changing the Constitution, not deciding what is Constitutional.
4. That's not how it works.
 
2012-06-28 01:31:48 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


You don't even need the Congress... the States can call a constitutional convention themselves.
 
2012-06-28 01:32:49 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: eraser8: ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.

Also, it's Article V that sets out the procedure for amendments: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

And that's ignoring the fact that if you have to change the constitution to allow something, then it was clearly unconstitutional in the first place


No one is talking about changing the Constitution to allow something, they're saying Paul is so full of shiat he has manure coming out his ears. The Supreme Court decides if something is constitutionally valid and congress can't change that. The only thing they can do is propose an amendment that would make it unconstitutional, but even then it's only a proposal and still has to be ratified.
 
2012-06-28 01:33:36 PM  

RexTalionis: You know, I've been saying for years that I'm wondering when the originalists would start rejecting Marbury v. Madison because it created a power in the Judicial branch that did not exist in the text of the Constitution.


I've heard it for about 4 years now, and the first person I heard it from was my step-dad that was arguing with his constitutional law taking nephew.
 
2012-06-28 01:34:55 PM  

RexTalionis: You know, I've been saying for years that I'm wondering when the originalists would start rejecting Marbury v. Madison because it created a power in the Judicial branch that did not exist in the text of the Constitution.


That started about an hour after Marbury v. Madison was decided.
 
2012-06-28 01:38:50 PM  

mitchcumstein1: ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.

No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO.


That will not work, and would be illogical to me, to meee...

/obscure lyric is obscure
 
2012-06-28 01:39:59 PM  
I can't wait for the next John McNaughton painting where John Roberts rips off his judicial robe, grabs a Koran and starts sodomizing George Washington with it while Obama, Clinton and Dubya give each other high-fives.
 
2012-06-28 01:40:27 PM  
That'll learn me to try and remember my Civics class stuff before I eat
 
2012-06-28 01:40:42 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: That will not work, and would be illogical to me, to meee...


Judge Scalia, Judge Scalia
JUDGE SCALIA LET ME GO
Nine guys in robes set a legal precedent for me, for me, for MEEEEEEEEEEEE
 
2012-06-28 01:41:11 PM  
It's not that Rand Paul is stupid that is insulting. It's that he thinks everyone else is stupid that is insulting.
 
2012-06-28 01:47:08 PM  
Put the bong down, Mr. Paul.
 
2012-06-28 01:48:35 PM  

Diogenes: Put the bong down, Mr. Paul

Aqua Buddha.

FTFY
 
2012-06-28 01:50:35 PM  
Reason or The American Thinker... which site is more ironically named?
 
2012-06-28 01:54:54 PM  
why is this person in charge of something?
 
2012-06-28 01:55:08 PM  

ArkAngel: That'll learn me to try and remember my Civics class stuff before I eat


Whoa. One of the few that actually admits they stepped in it and tracked it all across the room. This is rare and my respect for you went up a tiny bit.
 
2012-06-28 01:55:12 PM  
Does this mean we can ignore Citizens United also?
 
2012-06-28 01:55:26 PM  
www.azcentral.com

Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a historian!
 
2012-06-28 01:55:33 PM  
Welp, it's official. Neither of the PAULs knows what is and is not Constitutional, largely owing to the fact that neither one has read it.

// the Constitution does not come in paperback bearing the title Atlas Shrugged
// on second thought: go Galt, PAULs - form your own Senate with the rest of the Rugged Job-Creating Individualists
// it'll be as well-respected as your bullshiat self-granted credential to be an eye doctor
 
2012-06-28 01:55:55 PM  
Holy crap. He actually said that.
 
2012-06-28 01:56:05 PM  

Walker: And this is the guy the GOP wants to be a Mormon heartbeat away from the Presidency?


He's waiting for the Objectivist Rapture.
 
2012-06-28 01:56:09 PM  

mitchcumstein1: ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.

No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO.


Oh mamma-mia mamma-mia mamma-mia let me go.
 
2012-06-28 01:56:34 PM  

ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.


If Rand, himself, could put forth the amendment he'd still be wrong. The amendment would change the law (excepting wherein the amendment says "You bastards are wrong"). So until it's changed, it's constitutional.

Then again, I was never any good at logic so I might be wrong.
 
2012-06-28 01:59:25 PM  
Conservatives want to string up Roberts for being a strict constitutionalist and showing judicial restraint.

He's only calling balls and strikes, folks.
 
2012-06-28 01:59:47 PM  
I guess Rand failed high school government class.
 
2012-06-28 02:00:01 PM  
The Supreme Court in the Dredd Scott case ruled that black people didn't have rights.

Was the Supreme Court correct in that case?
 
2012-06-28 02:00:45 PM  

shroom: ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.

Last time I checked, only 3/4 of the States can override the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. But then again I've actually read the thing.



That doesn't overrule the court though, it changes the constitution.
 
2012-06-28 02:00:54 PM  
How can a whole political ideology be this dumb? How? You have to try to be this stupid, surely.

Wouldn't it be easier if you just let SOME facts in?
 
2012-06-28 02:01:06 PM  
LEAVE RON W. PAUL ALONE!
 
2012-06-28 02:01:20 PM  
A Republican Constitutionalist Tea Bagger doesn't know how the government works......you don't say!
 
2012-06-28 02:02:04 PM  

Chariset: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That will not work, and would be illogical to me, to meee...

Judge Scalia, Judge Scalia
JUDGE SCALIA LET ME GO
Nine guys in robes set a legal precedent for me, for me, for MEEEEEEEEEEEE


Ahurrerpaderpherpaderpitydederp ahurrherpaderpherpaderpitydederp ahurrherpaderpherpaderpitydederp ahurrherpaderpherpaderpitydederp!
 
2012-06-28 02:02:25 PM  
Amazing how someone who's father endorsed the Constitution Party in the last election not actually know what's in The Constitution.
 
2012-06-28 02:02:44 PM  

dittybopper: mitchcumstein1: ArkAngel: Technically he's correct. Final say always goes to Congress, who can overrule a Supreme Court decision with an amendment.

No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO.

Oh mamma-mia mamma-mia mamma-mia let me go.


Death panels have got their eyes set on me-- On Me-- ON MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

*kickass guitar solo*
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report