Too much theology on this board.
Let's do some /LAW/.

US Law.
What's your favorite court case? Or most disliked?

For me, I actively dislike Goldberg v. Kelly. I'm not a fan of "easy to give, hard to take away" when it comes to government benefits, and it sure felt like a funky extension of property interests under procedural due process.

I get the IDEA behind it, but I don't see any proper legal basis for it.

Roe v wade

*emanates from a penumbra at (You)*

>>17869087 (OP)
Brown vs Board of education
>>17869103
>abortions le bad even though it's 98% blacks and Hispanic that get one
Why are recucklicans like this?

>>17869087 (OP)
Renyolds v Simms permanently ruined every state with a large blue city

>>17869103
What didn't/did you like about it? Where do you think the court went rightly/wrongly LEGALLY?

>>17869107
What didn't/did you like about it? Where do you think the court went rightly/wrongly LEGALLY?

>>17869113
Do you think the court belongs, at all, inside of districting decisions?

>>17869087 (OP)
>a bunch of people argue in a courtroom in the middle of nowhere about made up rules created by other people that never consulted their constituents if they wanted this or not
>now everyone has to abide by the legal precedent
It's all so fucking stupid. The way old laws were made made way more sense because at least it led to consistency

>>17869145
>Do you think the court belongs, at all, inside of districting decisions?
renyolds v simms removed all representation in state governments from noncities

>>17869158
Okay, so you aren't objecting in a real legal sense, just in a systemic sense. In that case maybe make a neat post about comparative law.

Tell me what you think about Aethelbert's code or the Burgundian Code. Or go into more depth on why you think the Code of Hammurabi is a good stand-in.

>>17869087 (OP)
But Goldberg v Kelly doesn't create a property-like interest in welfare does it? A state legislature may add or subtract requirements at will and without compensation; Congress could abolish programs at will. A conventional due process interpretation is what's most relevant here; a state agency cannot be subject to a legal standard to distribute funds and then arbitrarily exclude recipients from them

>>17869145
>What didn't/did you like about it?
That it forced white children to share schools with violent genetic detritus that had no business being anywhere near and object as sharp as a pencil.
>Where do you think the court went rightly/wrongly LEGALLY?
The entire case was built on a century of dubious legal precedents and illegal rulings regarding the legal status of blacks as human beings, let alone "citizens".

>>17869203
Could you go more into the dubious legal precedents and where you think the argument failed in the legal process?

>>17869195
It "does". So I put it in quotes because Goldberg was a case which had its jurisprudence better defined AFTER the case was actually decided. Goldberg v. Kelly was in 1970. In the case they didn't actually talk about "property interests" all that much. But they DID talk a lot about procedural due process - given "notice and a hearing" before loss of "life, liberty, property". Subsequent to Goldberg v. Kelly comes Board of Regents v. Roth in 1972. In it, the court pokes at the idea that procedural due process needs to make sure the interests fall under either life, liberty, or property.

In doing so, they look BACK at Goldberg v. Kelly and explain it as such:
"The Fourteenth Amendment's procedural protection of property is a safeguard of the security of interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits. These interests—property interests—may take many forms. Thus, the Court has held that a person receiving welfare benefits under statutory and administrative standards defining eligibility for them has an interest in continued receipt of those benefits that is safeguarded by procedural due process. Goldberg v. Kelly"

"Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules [...] Thus, the welfare recipients in Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, had a claim of entitlement to welfare payments [...] Just as the welfare recipients' 'property' interest in welfare payments was created and defined by statutory terms, so the respondent's 'property' interest in employment at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh was created and defined by the terms of his appointment."

You can see it absolutely creates a property interest under procedural due process. Which is why I dislike it. Congressional issues alone don't resolve the constitutional tie-in. :(

>>17869158
Joke's on you, the Codex is literal propaganda, a statement of how he'd do it if they don't deal with their own shit and start bothering him.
Which still would make him a great king, because you can literally check the stele and see the outcome of your case, instead of having to hope and pray that he won't have both parties chopped in half instead.

>>17869087 (OP)
> Kelo v. City of New London
Absolute state-wank. "Public use" now means "whatever a corporation wants". Your home? Gone. Your rights? LOL.

>>17869087 (OP)
Not a court case, but the 21st amendment was a mistake.

>>17869087 (OP)
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
In this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal territory.

>>17869161
>>17869113
nah it had more to do with de-industralization. in the old days for example Illinois had enough people in it that the outlying counties could outvote Chicago but not anymore.

>>17869242
The whole conceivable public purpose thing is funky. What do you think about the Takings Clause in general?

And how far should "public purpose" extend?

And what should just compensation entail?

Reminder that FDR invented the meme that anything and everything that could conceivably pass between state borders could be regulated by the Feds a doctrine unknown to our Founders.

>>17869384
before renyolds v simms states could set up their state legislatures equally like how the US senate equally represents all Americans. reynolds v simms bans that so now only cities get representation in state governments

>>17869384
The last election that happened was 1988 which was a quarter century after Reynolds v. Simms so you think it would have been a lot earlier were that the case. Further you see in Trump's elections that the Pennsylvania suburbs/rural areas overcame Philly/Pittsburgh.

U.S. Government lost BTW

>>17869439
>2005
That one's too recent for /his/.

>>17869087 (OP)
>Or most disliked?
Whatever bumblefuck Anglo-Norman case was responsible for the creation of common law and the establishment of precedent [case law] as a judicial norm rather than just using Roman/civil law, circa 1066AD.

>>17869087 (OP)
There's not nearly enough theology on this board, where is all of it?

>>17869107
>>abortions le bad even though it's 98% blacks and Hispanic that get one
And they can be legal in the majority black and hispanic states so as many brown people can die as you want. White, republican states can stop killing their children. The whole thing about Roe is that it shouldn’t have been decided on a federal level and the issue should have been decided by the states, as it is now.

>>17869521
Go back to the continent, Romaboo.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. was a disaster

>>17869733
Why? People who say this act like Ford was somehow forced to go public. If Ford remained in private hands, he wouldn't have to bend over to shareholders and it wouldn't be an issue.

I think the rulings in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) will be important precedents for freedom of association in the future.

>>17869233
>You can see it absolutely creates a property interest under procedural due process. Which is why I dislike it.
They are afraid that people will riot if new legislatures come in and start cutting stuff. It's also part of the truism that bureaucracy must continually expand and have its mouth continuously stuffed with fried chicken until it collapses in on itself.

A non-conservative and expansive view of due process generally also exposes more hooks in the real world to create standing for potential court rulings. Thus, anything that expands it is perceived to be in the best interest of judges with an activist bent. This unfortunately includes those who are more interested in creating "positive change," than they may be in justice per say.

In reality, I think it's better characterized as more of a double-edged sword in reality. Same for the current interpretation of the Commerce clause.

A lot of times the biggest problem with the government as a centralized solution is that, even with the best of intentions, it's simply too disconnected and incompetent to do a particular job. I think that when considering questions of centralization, one should consider the tradeoffs between "incentives to be right" or lack thereof, with potential for abuse that might exist in a less-controlled situation due to lack of partiality, both on the part of private business as well as by the states. If either, or the federal government, is too empowered or is acting totally unchecked, then it actually leads to unfavorable situations, and this is true to some degree everywhere on the political spectrum. It remains a factor regardless of what agenda one might hold. In these kinds of things, there may be a some kind of direct negative consequence on the flip side of a coin that seems to be positive at first.

>>17869107
Its definitely not about that. Its about restricting female autonomy which is a good thing.

>>17869087 (OP)
Brown versus Board Of Education and the Hart-Cellar act come to mind.

>>17869087 (OP)
Isn't the difference between Anglo-American law and Continental law is that the former is case by case and the latter is more connected to natural law?

>>17869384
>>17869425
renyolds v sims has to do with state legislatures not presidential elections, commie faggot. shitcago shouldn't have 100% control over all of illinois, like it currently does. if anything, urban residents shouldn't get any say in government at any level

>>17869740
>>17869733
this was a shit case because (((dodge))) established that everyone should be fucked over for muh shareholders

>>17870100

>and yes it WILL all be chudseethe about brown vs. board of education

>>17870635
the Warren Court acknowledged in their notes that the ruling didn't actually have any constitutional leg to stand on but they were going to do it anyway because the result mattered more. at that time the government as a whole was fixated on trying to get rid of Jim Crow for reasons of Cold War politics. especially because the communist bloc could exploit disenfranchised blacks as a weapon.

>>17870111
That case did not fall under Federal jurisdiction to prosecute per the 10th Amendment.

>>17870652
Source?

>>17869087 (OP)
Marbury v Madison was genuinly unhinged and
ruined forever not only the American legal system but also the legal systems of a large number of other counties.

Lochner v. New York

>>17869404
>reciting Ron Paul originalism memes
a large portion of the government literally couldn't function if we went back to a 19th century reading of the commerce and general welfare clauses

brown vs board of education

>>17870842
Share why it's unhinged (I can guess, but share!)

>>17870831
I don't remember saying that specifically, I just recall their opinion stating the focus on "as things are" not "as they were". Maybe he means other notes not in the decision.

>>17870977
Why so?

>>17869087 (OP)
Masterpiece Cakeshop

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission_Oral_Argument.mp3
The idea that someone as stupid as Sotomayor could be a Supreme Court Justice convinced me that military dictatorships probably aren’t even that bad.

>>17869087 (OP)
>Too much theology on this board.
Legalism is religion without god and talmudism for goyim.
Its not grounded in reality.

>>17869380
As a tourist aren’t you still entitled to most constitutional protections? When did this change?

>>17871332
Also not 25 years ago.

>>17871281
Good, accelerate.

>>17871293
>Why so?
Total misunderstanding of the contracts clause which was a one-time provision designed to prevent states from abolishing debts their residents owed to banks after the Revolutionary War so as to keep the infant country's finances stable and solvent.

>>17871357
The board is called History and Humanities, we can talk about whatever we want here.

>>17871352
>As a tourist aren’t you still entitled to most constitutional protections?
Nope.

>>17871281
Not my problem.

>>17870635
brown vs board of ed caused a lot of modern problems with things like lack of housing or lack if public transport because people moved out of cities to keep their kids in racially segregated schools.
New Jersey schools are more racially segregated today than like mississipi or alabama schools. nyc famously uses the specialize highschool system to segregate schools

>>17871281
>a large portion of the government literally couldn't function if we went back to a 19th century reading of the commerce and general welfare clauses
that would be based. the federal government is too big and is bad and it only does bad stuff

>>17871352
>>17869380
they said blacks couldn't be people because then the 2nd amendment would apply to them. there are some courts like whatever circuit has AZ I think that said illegals are not people and therefore don't have 2a rights.
>>17871352
>>17871436
one thing you need to consider is dred scott was pre 14th amendment and the 14th amendment mentions anyone within the jurisdiction of the US, not just the people

>>17871636
It's good for certain things like preventing California from making gasoline cars and other propane accessories illegal to use within its borders. I guarantee you that Newson would do this right now if he somehow could. It's also good for preventing talmudic lawyers from making child molestation legal in certain states and stuff like that I'm sure, such as for example when California tried to pass that law to make essentially the forcible kidnapping of a child into California for trannification surgery legal (at least in California) so long as the child "consented." They are currently being restrained by the federal government on that count.

>>17871689
california isn't part of the US. I don't give a shit about what happens inside their 3rd world nonAmerican borders

>>17871689
>It's good for certain things like preventing California from making gasoline cars and other propane accessories illegal to use within its borders. I guarantee you that Newson would do this right now if he somehow could. It's also good for preventing talmudic lawyers from making child molestation legal in certain states
?

>>17871695
Should the law have passed, their activists were offering to kidnap children from other states into California, North Korea-style, without their parents' knowledge. This is of course one of a multitude of examples, but it's an example that came to mind.

>>17871646
>14th amendment
was obviously a mistake

>>17871729
>>17871689
yeah, idk what he's arguing about since the EPA let's california's CAR board ban ICE cars and shit anyway
>>17871741
man act

>>17871753
>man act
The Mann Act is a federal law, which is exactly my point.

>>17871753
>yeah, idk what he's arguing about since the EPA let's california's CAR board ban ICE cars and shit anyway
Under the 10th Amendment they're allowed to ban anything they want within their own borders.

>>17871760
It was also always an unconstitutional one because it purports to regulate a vice activity which is something that is not in Congress's enumerated powers.

>>17871763
I don't know about you, but I am against North Korea-style abductions of children by people in California, who want to use it as a sanctuary for the purposes of grooming them into sterilized tranny freaks. And if it's not the Mann Act that is used to stop it, it's going to be some federal law that has to prohibit it.

>>17871779
well i mean a state can't abduct another state's residents that would be the case even under an originalist reading of the Constitution

>>17871760
the mann act predates the expansion of the commerce clause
>>17871761
the epa has some weird rule that state epas that are older than the epa have extra powers and the CAR is older than the EPA

>>17871787
>well i mean a state can't abduct another state's residents
It doesn't have to be the state itself, but rather a private citizen living there.

If one state says that the people living within their state cannot be prosecuted, because they think mutilating another person's child is acceptable, simply because that underage child has been brainwashed into it, then it is time for the US Marshals to be sent to hunt down the child molester if the state of California really won't act.

>>17871807
>the mann act predates the expansion of the commerce clause
I think the point the other person who originally brought it up was making was that it could be used against such activity now.

>>17871815
I don't see how you need to expand the commerce clause to have a federal law against kidnapping and castrating children

>>17871815
If California passes a law that it's legal to abduct another state's citizens then it absolutely does count because the state is willfully abetting it.

>>17871830
>I don't see how you need to expand the commerce clause to have a federal law against kidnapping and castrating children
You could have the law, but it wouldn't be enforceable in 99% of real world cases. So, that's the flip side of the coin.

>>17871838
>You could have the law, but it wouldn't be enforceable in 99% of real world cases.
false. do you really think they couldn't enforce laws against kidnapping someone's kids before the 1940s?

>>17871842
>false. do you really think they couldn't enforce laws against kidnapping someone's kids before the 1940s?
No, because no state would have even thought of allowing it back then. Now some do.

>>17871830
>I don't see how you need to expand the commerce clause to have a federal law against kidnapping and castrating children

Let me clarify. Under an originalist reading of the Constitution, state governments cannot kidnap, detain, etc another state's citizens unless it is to hold them for a crime they have been charged with. They also cannot tax the residents of another state. Now the commerce clause was never meant to apply to private actors, only state ones. Like for example we can argue that Chuck Berry being convicted under the Mann Act was silly because he was not a state actor.

>>17871847
>>17871849
you are a fucking retard if you think an originalist reading of the constitution is fine with people going into other states and then kidnapping, molesting and castrating those kids

>>17871867
As I said if California passes a law allowing that then it does become a state abetting said kidnapping.

>>17871867
>you are a fucking retard if you think an originalist reading of the constitution is fine with people going into other states and then kidnapping, molesting and castrating those kids
There are activists in California who would say that is fine if the kid asks for it. In fact, that was decades ago. Now it's gotten to the point where they have enough control to begin contemplating not only just not prosecuting it, but even making it law. Apparently a significant number of people in California are actually deluded enough to think it's like freeing the slaves or something.

>>17871872
>>17871880
they are still kidnapping kids from other states. kidnapping is illegal. again the mann act predated the expansion of the commerce clause

>>17871883
>kidnapping is illegal.
I know it is. In most states it still is, but there are a few that are really crossing that line or want to be crossing it. The situation is currently that if they do cross it, they will still be stopped because of federal laws.

>again the mann act predated the expansion of the commerce clause
Right, but as originally mentioned, it could be used to stop such activity today. And if it didn't already exist, then another federal law could be passed to prevent it, if it started happening. And again, the reason it didn't happen before the 1930s is because no state even dreamed about making this legal back then.

>>17871872
then why were rightists ok with states like Texas trying to make it illegal to go to another state to get an abortion despite the fact that same would apply here?

>>17871889
dredd scott is a similar scenario and it predates the mann act too. your argument for the expansion of the commerce clause is gay and retarded
>>17871894
because I hate democrats so banning baby murder is based considering dems have a fetish for killing babies

>>17871917
>dredd scott is a similar scenario and it predates the mann act too
The Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment had a provision in it allowing fugitive slaves to be reclaimed by their owners; the original 1793 FSA gave it legs.

>>17871894
I don't condone that.

now obviously we don't regard Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. vs United States as anything more than judicial activism

>>17871894
>states like Texas trying to make it illegal to go to another state to get an abortion
I don't think that ever actually happened, but if they did try it hypothetically I would not be in favor of such a precedent. As much as it might be a tool to stop certain evil behavior, imagine what other kinds of perfectly valid things certain state governments might try to criminalize under similar provisions. I don't want to have California (or another country for that matter) issue warrants for my arrest upon entry because I used pronouns wrong once.

But as for abortion specifically, it is a subset of first degree murder and there should be no legal difference between the two. If any state chooses to do otherwise, that's where the 14th amendment comes in. Allowing the murder of someone simply because they are unborn is a violation of constitutional rights, and states can't be permitted to allow someone's right to life be violated if those states concurrently have laws against homicide on the books. This isn't even up for vote or for states to decide, it's really a constitutional rights issue. The Casey decision is only the first step to that end point.

>>17871695
>A place that has 40 million American citizens isn't part of the US
You do understand how petty and vapid you sound whenever you say this right?

While we're on the subject of law
>>17871880
>Pic
That law was made to give judges more discretion on sex offenses. In current California law, for example, if a 19 year old has sex with a 17 year old, it's up to a judge to decide whether or not that 19 year old is a sex offender, as automatically adding them to a registry might not make sense in that case. Currently any and all gay sex with a similar scenario will automatically add you to a sex offender registry regardless, that law was meant to remove this as a point of potential discrimination.
Now one could argue that gay sex should still be automatic in adding you to a sex offender registry (hell I'm sure some retards here think it should even between consenting adults) then you're entitled to that opinion and the bill should've been criticized on its actual merit, but spreading lies that it was about pedophillia is just poisoning the well. If we're unable to have honest discourse about these things then nobody wins. I suspect that propaganda like that though isn't even spread to poison a well, rather in an attempt to mischaracterize the law of an entire state that leans away from the articles intended audience on the political spectrum

>>17871967
there are no Americans in california. only subhuman communists

>>17872026
1 in 6 gun owners in America live in California. You want to say that again Cleetus?

>>17872008
most states have romeo and juliet laws. Why are faggots exempt from california's weird and retarded age of consent laws? in NJ for instance, the age of consent is 16 and it's legal for 2 people within 4 years of age to have sex even if one of them is not 16. this was like when retards were seething that the pedo kyle shot might have just
>had sex with a 17 year old
or something, when AZ, the state he was convicted in, has a romeo and juliet law and he really serial raped a bunch of boys under the age of 12
>>17872033
there are no Americans in california, only subhuman communists. if north korea nuked california the US would celebrate and award north korea

>>17872008
>that law was meant to remove this as a point of potential discrimination.
Sodomy is an abomination and has historically always been treated as such in our legal system. Of course it is a point of discrimination. These people are worthy of death for what they have done, just like drug dealers and drug cartels, anon.

This has always been our values as Americans historically and these are my values today.

>hell I'm sure some retards here think it should even between consenting adults
It is possible for two people who consent to something to commit a crime. For example, if two consenting adults agree to spread radioactive waste into the environment, they are both guilty of a serious crime. If they agree to counterfeit money, they are guilty.

>and the bill should've been criticized on its actual merit
I don't know about you, but I use this article as an example of what kind of lawmakers California has right now. These people weren't around in the political or legislative sphere in the 1930s, they are a different kind of threat to freedom and our way of life. They want to spread HIV/AIDS for example, and recruit children by chemically castrating them at youth, and many of them would even be willing to kidnap children from other states to do it. They criticize anyone who thinks that is wrong as being "antisemitic." That was my point.

>>17872036
>Why are faggots exempt from california's weird and retarded age of consent laws?
They're not, that was literally the point of the bill. Is English your first language Cleetus? Because you seem to struggle with reading comprehension

>>17872033
I advise you to just steer clear and don't reply to posters like him. They genuinely have nothing interesting to say and even if you like arguing with people it's not really satisfying to engage with them because they are just going to say retarded shit over and over again. It's like getting blueballed out of a good debate because you think if you make an effort to be decent and engage with someone they might reciprocate but it's just going to be retarded low effort shit over and over.

>>17872039
>They want to spread HIV/AIDS for example, and recruit children by chemically castrating them at youth
I know you don't actually believe this in good faith because otherwise you should be happy that people you don't like are willing to kill or sterilize themselves

>>17871849
it also did not empower the government to regulate private industry

>>17872045
>you should be happy that people you don't like are willing to kill or sterilize themselves
They are grooming other children through public education. They could target anyone. That's how this thing spreads, it's through recruitment of innocent children who are the targets of predators.

>>17872040
they are, you gay retard. you are literally arguing that faggots should be exempt from the age of consent law while normal people should not be.
I hope a wildfire kills all life in california

>>17872041
keep seething, you gay retard. california is a shithole and no human has ever come from that shithole foreign country

>>17872048
You seem to be confused, California is ran by Democrats you see, and all the pedophiles are Republicans at the moment.

>>17872061
nope. all democrats are in favor of pedophiles

>>17872061
I am patient and I have the facts on my side. It's only a matter of time before we witness what is the equivalent of the Maxi Trial in Italy against these people, and it will have to be on a much larger scale.

>>17872066
Gay pedophiles specifically.

>>17872066
>>17872070
>>17872098
Do me a favor and try and picture an apple inside of your head and let me know if you can see it

>>17872105
only brain dead retards who can't think for themselves vote blue. that's why all the rural chad areas are red and all the cities are blue

Salinas v Texas

One of the most bizarre things you'll ever read

there were a couple of Supreme Court cases about the legality of CP such as Faerber v. New York and they all always seemed to involved faggots with boy material. how convenient.

>>17872008
>hell I'm sure some retards here think it should even between consenting adults
Why do you defend faggotry?

>>17873603
The right of men to rape little girls was never questioned by the Supreme Court, as we have come to realize.

>>17873603
The organized pedo rights movement has always been mainly faggots.

>>17871347
Law is applied moral philosophy
Any ritualized component of it is merely a consequence of the fact that the operation of law involves invoking the awesome power of the state (or crown, originally)
Calling everything you don't like religion while trying to shill your own religion is such a stupid thing anons do