How Laws Are Made

I guess I'm under the mistaken notion that it's not an "idea" that's the basis of law but the need for a solution to a problem. Nowhere in the link is that mentioned. Shouldn't kids begin their understanding by knowing the reasons we have laws? But really, it does seem we too often have lawmakers with nothing important to do other than make laws for trivial reasons.

The site offers special attention to women, blacks and Hispanics in the law making body. At the youngest ages, I really think this is neither necessary or even appropriate. When you take away those three groups, who should they think make up the rest?...and what has been their contribution? Let these kids start off with all people as just people whose contribution is equally important.

I had no reason to post it here.

I hope others learned something.

You didn't post anything different than what I've been telling you all along.

SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to create law, but they HAVE.....with the three examples I've given you already.

I have no idea what you are continuing to babble about because you literally proved what I've been telling you.

Show the Government "passing a law", someone/some group complaining/appealing to the court for a ruling.....and SCOTUS telling the government which parts of the law are "legal" and which parts are "NOT legal".

That's ALL...not "CREATING a law".

They don't create...they adjudicate, Perhaps YOU'RE getting the meanings of the words confused because they rhyme?

cre·ate/krēˈāt/
verb

bring (something) into existence.

ad·ju·di·cate/əˈjo͞odəˌkāt/
verb

make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.


IF/UNLESS/UNTIL someone passes "a law" you don't hear a peep (writing a law) from the SCOTUS.

They ADD nothing to a law...merely state which parts are "legal".

Since you claim they "create" a law...give me an example where the created a law and went to the House of Representatives and introduced a Bill and the House passed this "bill".

Your DOMA claim about SCOTUS said parts were "legal" and other part weren't "legal".....THAT is NOT creating a law. IF the Gov didn't "create THAT law"...The SCOTUS would have been silent on the matter.

RE: I have no idea what you are continuing to babble about because you literally proved what I've been telling you.

Hey!!! I feel the same way. I wonder what the solution is.

Is the a community in West Virginia named Babylon?

Is the a community in West Virginia named De Nile?

and worded EXACTLY as intended, SCOTUS' ONLY authority is to rule on the wording, not the INTENT. When SCOTUS CHANGES the wording to suit itself, they have broken the law itself.

You'll never get it.......bye

That's right...and that's all they've been doing.

NOW will you withdraw YOUR statement

BO didn't create that law...SCOTUS did

SCOTUS doesn't "create"

Please tell everyone how else are people expected to follow a law other than "written", do you know of any other way for people to know "what the law is" other than the written word? The spoken word has words that sound the same but are spelled differently and have different meanings. We're stuck with the written word.

IF the Government passes a law that is in conflict with other laws that are already on the books...How is it enforceable?

They didn't rule on the wording.....they CHANGED the wording. There is a huge difference that somehow you just can't comprehend.

Congress didn't pass a law that is in conflict with other laws that are already on the books...........they created NEW laws.......and SCOTUS rewrote them with a wave of their hand.

How many different ways do you want to hear the same thing before you figure that out?

PENALTY...... http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11899-supreme-court-rewrites-obamacare-rules-individual-mandate-is-permissible-tax

"The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a "penalty," not a "tax.""

SUBSIDIES...
http://www.nationalmemo.com/obamacare-subsidies-upheld-by-supreme-court-ruling/

"The exact wording of the statute says subsidies are only available to those who purchase insurance on exchanges "established by the State".

This was done/worded deliberately in order to force each State to establish their own exchanges (supposedly saving the Federal Government the trouble of signing up each person so they could spend it instead by sending it to each State for expanding their Medicaid coverage).

DOMA.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

The first two paragraphs on this page show the proof. SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to 'strike down' a law that BO's administration decided wasn't constitutional....only Congress has that ability by writing a new law repealing it, just as it did with Prohibition.

I'm done......admit or don't admit you're wrong, I don't care, since you don't matter one whit about any of this because you don't have the right to do anything about it anymore than SCOTUS did.

I asked for

Give me a link to the "old" version and a link to the "new" version with the CHANGED (that were changed by SCOTUS) words.

You provided

Supreme Court Rewrites ObamaCare; Rules Individual Mandate Is Permissible Tax

“Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.” In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court UPHELD the joint venture of the President and Congress

UPHELD......NO need to "Re-write/Create" OR "proof of being re-writen/created BY SCOTUS".


Obamacare Subsidies Upheld By Supreme Court Ruling

The highest court handed down a 6-3 ruling upholding one of the crucial components of the Affordable Care Act,

UPHELD......NO need to "Re-write/Create" OR "proof of being re-writen/created BY SCOTUS".

Defense of Marriage Act

The first two paragraphs on this page show the proof. SCOTUS doesn't have the authority

I was asking for SCOTUS "changing the wording of laws" YOUR claim...not claims of not having authority.

I'm not sifting through Wiki looking for "proof" of something you're trying to show.


NONE of your links show

Give me a link to the "old" version and a link to the "new" version with the CHANGED (that were changed by SCOTUS) words.

So I consider your response a non-response.

Respond to this post IF you want...I'll let you have the "last word", I'll not respond in this thread.

IF you've already had your "last word" in this thread...Have a good day.

by IGNORING the ACTUAL wording and CHANGING it to their OWN words instead.........."PENALTY" to "TAX", "STATES" to "state's" (STATE= individual State; state's=Federal Government) and "EXCLUDE" gay marriage to "INCLUDE"........so they UPHELD the Federal Government's attorneys' arguments to change the words and the intent.........they never UPHELD the LAWS themselves.

Since this is my last word, I'll accept your apology in advance.

It's the principle of "precedence" which creates the problem, giving jurisprudence and rulings the "force of law". It's like a legal threat that having once ruled this way, unless WE decide to vacate such ruling as "precedent having effect on all future rulings" it will be counted as law. We need to force the Supreme Court to only allow any ruling to have such force after 2/3's of Congress has agreed it has the force of law behind it, otherwise each judicial ruling is to apply only in that one case and can't be used for more than historical guidance outside "force of law" when making an argument. If that means every similar case must then be adjudicated over and over again at the Supreme Court to get a "pass" from them till they can find agreement between them and Congress, then so be it.