6/24/2013 1:26 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):
So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.  BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment.  tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way.  It's up for debate.
That is not correct.  I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out.  DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced.  Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.
When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here.  And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law.  If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."
Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

bad_luck thinks that you can.

bad_luck also probably wears a New England Patriots "19-0" Super Bowl XLII t-shirt.
It's premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, yes.  It's never too early or late for someone to have an opinion on it though.  Since the Constitution isn't exactly verbose, a lot of things are up for interpretation, which is why whether something is constitutional or not is often up for debate.
Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand basketball to have an opinion on the merits of a 2-3 zone, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand football to have an opinion on the merits of a 4-3 vs. a 3-4 defensive scheme, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who has not had any training as a constitutional lawyer to have an opinion on the nuances of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?
6/24/2013 1:29 PM
I agree that that's your opinion.

This has got to be one of the best responses to BL I've seen someone else make.  No, seriously, that was awesome, tecwrg.
6/24/2013 1:31 PM
I'm not a basketball coach, nor have I played basketball on a level higher than my CYO team when I was 10.  I can give you an opinion that makes sense on the merits of a 2-3 zone.

I'm not a constitutional expert, but I can give an opinion on my interpretation on the following statement:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
6/24/2013 1:33 PM
And what makes this more humorous is that you gave an opinion!  You gave some explanation on what you thought "power" meant.
6/24/2013 1:42 PM
POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!

BL is like Darth Sidious in Star Wars - he thinks he has unlimited power.
6/24/2013 1:44 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
And what makes this more humorous is that you gave an opinion!  You gave some explanation on what you thought "power" meant.
What did I say?
6/24/2013 1:49 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Yes.  I don't consider "defining marriage" a "power".
If you have no opinion on the 10th amendment and what it means, you wouldn't have shared this opinion.
6/24/2013 1:50 PM
By power, I assume you mean this.


6/24/2013 2:06 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):
So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.  BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment.  tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way.  It's up for debate.
That is not correct.  I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out.  DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced.  Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.
When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here.  And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law.  If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."
Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

bad_luck thinks that you can.

bad_luck also probably wears a New England Patriots "19-0" Super Bowl XLII t-shirt.
It's premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, yes.  It's never too early or late for someone to have an opinion on it though.  Since the Constitution isn't exactly verbose, a lot of things are up for interpretation, which is why whether something is constitutional or not is often up for debate.
Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand basketball to have an opinion on the merits of a 2-3 zone, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand football to have an opinion on the merits of a 4-3 vs. a 3-4 defensive scheme, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who has not had any training as a constitutional lawyer to have an opinion on the nuances of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?
No one is asking you to state your opinion as fact.

Things that are facts:

Joe Smith was convicted of murder.
The Patriots went 18-1 and didn't win the Super Bowl.
The Supreme Court overturned law X on grounds that it violates the Y amendment.


Things that can be just opinions:

Jim Johnson is a murderer.
The Patriots were the best team in football.
Law Z is unconstitutional because it violates X amendment.

But I'm glad that you clarified that you don't understand the constitution.
6/24/2013 2:22 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 12:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
The Constitution is not a verbose document.  I don't see why it should take years of specialized training to be able to understand it...  The people that wrote it certainly were not trained in Constitutional law, and many of them weren't trained in law at all...  Madison himself studied law a bit in college, but was not a lawyer.
If it's so simple, then any issues on constitutionality that make it to SCOTUS should always result in an immediate 9-0 decision.

Why doesn't that always happen?
Politics?
6/24/2013 3:34 PM
6/26/2013 12:03 AM
Tomorrow's the big day. 10am eastern.
6/26/2013 6:01 AM
Will you throw a handful of confetti into the air if you "win"?
6/26/2013 7:21 AM
It's really gonna bother me if DOMA and Prop 8 wind up falling on the same political side.  It's probably going to happen.  But from a constitutional perspective they almost have to have opposite political decisions - if DOMA is unconstitutional and the right to define marriage is reserved to the states, Prop 8 should be upheld.  And vice versa.
6/26/2013 7:41 AM
Based on the other decisions issued by SCOTUS the past two days, my best guess is that they'll issue some muddled partial rulings and punt both cases back down to the lower courts and say "try again".
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.