It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does SCOTUS need to produce a dictionary of words for Congress to use when making laws?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
This is just a short rant but I need to get this out of me because it's eating me up.

SCOTUS obviously doesn't take the words written in the laws approved by Congress literally.
i.e. the word "penalty" really means "tax
i.e. the words "exchanges established by the states" really means "exchanges established by the states AND the federal government"

SCOTUS either needs to send Congress a list of approved words
OR
SCOTUS needs to stop changing the words and rewriting the laws passed by Congress. (which violates Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution which states "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Nowhere in this statement does it say and ALSO SCOTUS.

ETA: does SCOTUS now stand for Supreme Congress of the United States?

phew...now I feel better

edit on 6/27/2015 by fltcui because: more ramblings




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: fltcui

"Depends on what your definition of 'is' is." ~ President William Clinton

There, now I feel better too.

Thank you!



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
"all words matter"




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Of course penalty means tax...

If penalty meant penalty then they'd have to explain why they are penalising people...
And that would be unconstitutional I'm sure.



Further, a quick google search says that judicial review in the States and Article 3 suggest there is no violation as you put forth.
Basically Congress can be challenged and then it's up to the SCOTUS to determine constitutionality.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: fltcui

SCOTUS has now taken it upon themselves to make law instead of interpreting contradictions and determining constitutionality.

The "State Penalties" for not setting up their own exchanges were even bragged about by the people directly involved with it's drafting. He is on video tape laughing about and bragging that it was put in there to make them comply.

Having unelected judges for life than can now make or ignore law is too dangerous in this NSA age where they can be compromised.


edit on 27-6-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

How the heck can somebody determine the constitutionality of the following words?
"exchanges established by the states" really means "exchanges established by the states AND the federal government"

It totally baffles me



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ultralight

Thank you, you made me laugh




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: fltcui

It would take me a while to find an answer to that question fltcui.

I have a copy of the U.S. Constitution laying around somewhere, but I'd need about a week to dig through my cupboard and find it.


I'm sure someone mentioned the federal aspect on ATS the other day, somewhere in the later amendments.
Can't be 100% though.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The damn architect is on freeking video bragging about exactly what they did and why. The SCOTUS knows this. Hell, it is on freeking video.

He spells the whole thing out. I dare anyone to watch this and say that is not what was meant.

www.youtube.com...








edit on 27-6-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: fltcui

It would take me a while to find an answer to that question fltcui.

I have a copy of the U.S. Constitution laying around somewhere, but I'd need about a week to dig through my cupboard and find it.


Come on Charlie...use the internet and Google like the rest of us!




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Barry probably sold him the real constitution on EBAY, since he don't need it.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The White House offers free abridged copies.

Postage paid too.




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: fltcui

Just to clarify a point that you were trying to make. It is "established by the State", not "the states".

State being used to describe a federated state which describes what the US is. It might help if you ponder the terms Secretary of State and State Department.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Proving a logical framework to the language of legalize promotes standards which are a good thing. When movements like the neo cons break conventions with prisoner torture over terms like combatant, language only goes so far and is more of a reflection of culture than directing it.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The White House offers free abridged copies.

Postage paid too.



I got mine free from Alex Jones when I bought a "9/11 was an inside job" t-shirt.

That was a few years ago now.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
LAWS ARE NOT WRITTEN BY CONGRESS, THEY ARE WRITTEN BY CORPORATIONS!



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join