 New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Debate Shrine. |
| User | Post |
| Elara Posts: 4578/9736 |
As far as I know it is written in the Constitution that the ruling of the Supreme Court is final and only a new ruling by them can overturn a previous one. So I would believe that the lower courts are required to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court... otherwise what is the point of appealing to a higher court for a verdict? |
| avatar of law Posts: 454/486 |
Originally posted by Elara i always figured it was like that. but now that i think about it... when you are dissatisfied about your ruling in a lower court, or believe the decision was wrong based on something you can appeal to the higher court. that is, if the higher court even wants to listen to your case. capital offenses in cali are required to be taken to the supreme court by law, if all options has been exhusted. but anyways, for a particular case, and if it applies to other things, the supreme court makes a decision, which would put "preceedence." but what is "preceedence?" usually the lower courts will uphold the ruling to other similar cases. however, are they REQUIRED to? i think it is just a tradition to uphold preceedence, but im not sure if there's a law to uphold it, otherwise a wrong preceedence cannot be overturned based on something in the 1920's lifestyle put into 2007? |
| Elara Posts: 4570/9736 |
True... but at the same time the ruling of the Superior Court is supposed to overrule any decision made by a lesser court, so technically South Dakota is wrong in banning abortion because the ruling of the Superior Court still stands.
Random tidbit: Actually, the main reason that the Articles failed was because the central government did not have the powers of taxation or trade regulation. Because of that, they had no money to do anything and the states didn't want to help them because they were doing well for themselves charging tariffs for goods coming from or going to another state. I have found no evidence as to who the author of the Articles were, and I have never before heard that Franklin was the author. But yes, the fact that each state had a different form of currency and that it's value varied from state to state also greatly hindered the country because even the individual states had no real value to back up their currency. Civil War... yes, the abolitionist movement played a major role in the stress that lead up to the war, but it was not the only cause. To be honest, a book could be written on just the causes that lead up to the Civil War and it would be a very large book indeed. The economic and social differences between northern and southern states is usually acknowledged as the primary cause of the war though. |
| Rogue Posts: 3529/11918 |
That is true. It would be rather stupid for the states to create their own currency as they did for many years, even through the Civil War. To throw out trivial information it was a problem for the British during the Revolution in that when trading with other countries, the state-printed money (which was pretty much worth nothing) to be sent to Britain to have them cash it for actual pounds, which was a bitch for them seeing as they were spending so much defending the Colonies and such.
Again, Elara can correct me. I'd forgotten to bring this one up, but another state-exclusive decision was South Dakota's denouncing of the Roe v. Wade precedent last year and putting a ban on all forms of abortion, except in cases when terminating a fetus would save the life of the pregnant woman. To explain states' rights, however, also requires quoting the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Seeing as medicinal marijuana usage, gay marriages, abortion, and such are not exactly ideas that were thought of and documented by the framers of the Constitution, they become open properties for states to decide upon themselves. Granted abortion, since the '70s was dealt with by following the Supreme Court's ruling of Roe v. Wade, based on South Dakota's choice, it can be assumed that it's also not a set-in-stone mandate. |
| avatar of law Posts: 453/486 |
Originally posted by Elara so yeah, it doesnt even count =P i dunno, when i was discussing some stuff relating to federal and state laws with my friends, they were pretty ignorant about things. like, they thought that states had more rights than federal laws =/ that the state constitutions overceeded the US constitution =/ oh wells... 
i'll throw in more useless info. the articles of confederation was mostly written by ben franklin. it went under when because EVERY state had their own form of currency, which was bad, because the facevalue wasnt usually what it's worth. moreover, there was no centralized army. the central government couldnt even make an army. they can ask states to send X amounts of army men, but could not enforce them to actually do it =P |
| Rogue Posts: 3526/11918 |
Originally posted by Vulkar If I remember correctly slavery was just something that became accepted over time when a couple of black indentured servants were sentenced to lifetime servitude and so on and so forth. The federal government, when bringing territories into the union, designated which was a slave state and which was a free state. Slavery had become a necessary evil in that the South produced most of the cotton and the North, where textile companies were the hot commodity, needed the cotton to make said textiles and such. The confederacy that formed was more of an issue between abolitionists and non-abolitionists and what have you. Elara can correct me on this as I'm sure she's much more knowledgeable on the topic than I. Now in the sense where I was addressing the age of consent and marriage, it does strike as a state's choice, as a state is a specific grouping of people--People in Ohio don't choose if gays should be allowed to marry in Hawaii and Alabama doesn't vote on measures that would affect California-specifically. I'm speaking on the legalization of gay and polygamous unions in that some states have their own idea on what's legal and what isn't instead of following a federal mandate of "the age of consent is 18" or "same-sex partners cannot marry under any circumstances." As of May 2007, here's where the country stood on the topic: 
Also in the news last night (though I can't seem to find an article for it outside of the LAist), a coalition of marijuana growers and dealers have made an offer to Arnold to have California make money off of them by legalizing marijuana and putting a tax on it: http://laist.com/2007/08/08/stoners_demand.php |
| Elara Posts: 4560/9736 |
Actually, when the states had control of the government it was under the Articles of Confederation, which predate the Constitution which was written later when it was obvious that the Articles didn't work. The Civil War had many causes, though that is a different story completely.
... Sorry, History major, had to do it. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 2598/4541 |
Drugs: For use of medicinal marijuna, it should stay legal, although very much controlled. I stongly disagree with what the DEA officers have decided to do, ESPECIALLY with the fact that they're arresting those who are giving it out. How are people supposed to know what law to obey when both the state and the federal law contradict?
Video games: I actually somewhat agree with the judge. Games like Fable, Jade Empire, and Halo shouldn't be restricted from minors. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them! I'm afraid that I do think that it contradicts with our right to free speech. If they restrict it from anyone below 18, then it just becomes a less major AO rating. It becomes considered the same thing as pornography. I think that only AO rated games should be restricted in any form. So yes, I agree with the judge in his ruling. I think that if it violates the constitution, it is allowed to be vetoed. Various other things: The federal government isn't really making many changes there. Sure, there's a bit of pressure for them to change the law, but that's about all. Protest: If they disagree, go ahead and say it, it's their right. It doesn't mean that they're completely right though. There was a time in which most of the government was under the state's control. You know what happened less than a century later? Yeah, it's called the slavery issue and the civil war. States can have some power, maybe even a lot, but it most definitely shouldn't be unlimited. |
| Elara Posts: 4559/9736 |
Personally, I do think that state rights are being infringed on. The law about the video games I think was dumb, it should be a store policy thing... but I wouldn't go as far as to say the law was unconstitutional.
The pot one has always been a problem and will always be a problem. However, I think that they are really being assholes about it lately. They could easily overturn the law like they did the one about the video games by citing that the federal law takes precedence, however they would rather leave the law in place and then raid state-sanctioned facilities like they were the local pot dealer's garage. |
| avatar of law Posts: 452/486 |
you make a lot of points, and to a degree i agree. however, those points are moot in the use of drugs.
age of consent is on a regional basis, based on the ruling religion, and hundred years of social tradition. it is a "social issue." marriage too is based on the ruling factions of the political majority. it is a "Social issue." Drugs however, has long long been decided by almost everyone to be a "bad" thing. medical uses can be a "good" thing. the only problem is the regulation of drugs. when you make something illegal legal for another use, those who would want to abuse it illegally will come crawling out of the woodworks offering higher prices. again, it is hard to regulate this. that's the underlying issue. not state rights =/ |
| Rogue Posts: 3525/11918 |
First thing I'd like to get out of the way before I'm accused of it--I have never smoked marijuana in my life and I do not support the use any illicit drugs and so on and so forth. Just say no blah blah blah. It's your choice, your body, you get the point.
Now, back to the point I'm going to state. I live in California (as do many of the board members here). Our state OK'd the use of medicinal marijuana for cancer patients and those of similar or serious conditions (AIDS, etc). This is, however, not the situation with the federal government; therefore, the Drug Enforcement Administration has been raiding dispensaries (places where medicinal marijuana can legally be obtained). These places are having their supply confiscated, owners are being arrested, and many of these places are being shut down. While these stories have been coming up on the news on TV, I notice the smug faces of DEA officers as they're quoted saying that the practice is illegal no matter what any state government says. The official statements they've been giving reporters are usually along the lines of dispensary owners making profits like street drug dealers. One of MANY stories on the topic: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/25/state/n174835D78.DTL&type=politics In converse of this, a federal judge recently stopped our state's law banning minors (those under 18 in California) from buying violent video games and demanding that retailers label the games in such a way that it would be obvious that the game is rated-M (as the state believes the rating system is not effective enough as clerks and such are ignoring the little labels on the back and so on). Retailers could be fined $1000 per violation. The judge said the law was unconstitutional in that it impeded on the right of free speech. Article on that story: http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_218232317.html Any thoughts on these? Many states have laws that go against the grain. Nevada has legal prostitution and many forms of gambling (while gaming is legal in some forms, slot machines and other types of gambling are not permissible everywhere). The age of consent varies from state to state and let us not forget the schizophrenic divide over the legalization of gay marriages and polygamy. Just to cap this off, a protest was held last weekend in Los Angeles, calling itself a funeral for state's rights. |
