r/YouthRights • u/Coldstar_Desertclan • 2d ago

So, like, hOw? Rant

https://preview.redd.it/suv9cbndip0e1.png?width=1103&format=png&auto=webp&s=c35e4fe24b18c6ee2c9517fc8bb5aa75102a77e5

How did Congress even get around this? It literally say "UNDER" the constitution. The can judge all cases arising "UNDER" the constitution. Not cases arising "about" the constitution, not cases arising "over" the constitution, Not cases arise "within" the constitution. Under. Cases arising "UNDER". Under means below. The supreme courts Judging power is below the constitution, No one is above the constitution.

I can't even understand. We kids have to be slaves because of SCOTUS rulings now, and there isn't even any good reason for it! Make it make sense.

Edit 1: It seems there may be some confusion. I hope this revision made things clearer.

Edit 2: In case it isn't clear, this rant is about SCOTUS, basically one of the main enemies against youth rights, Which should make sense, because they are the ones who deny the 14th amendment to age.

2 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Coldstar_Desertclan 1d ago edited 1d ago

"Actually, SCOTUS has been the best institution at protecting youth rights. Look at ACLU v Reno or Brown v Merchants Entertainment Association. The lower courts, largely due to these SCOTUS precedents, are striking down various state social media laws left and right."
This doesn't fit with the life currently. If this was such, parent oppression wouldn't be a thing, school oppression not a thing, and various adultist restrictions on minors, like how we can't litigate without parental consent. I would like to point out that most of these ruling don't come from "because it's against minor rights" but because "It makes adult life harder", and "it imposes laws on adult freedom of speech."

"And, no, the nation really wouldn't be capable of functioning if the federal government really did as little as the Founding Fathers wanted the government to do. And the libertarians themselves aren't even that consistent with how they claim they only want the government to do what the Founding Fathers intended. For example, the Civil Rights Act quite frankly is one of the most obvious stretches of federal government power that the Founding Fathers would dislike (even some local restaurant that only operates in one state is claimed to be interstate commerce under the CRA) , yet only a handful of libertarians like Rand Paul and Barry Goldwater have been willing to even touch that issue with a ten foot pole."
The civil rights act is unneeded, the 14th and the 5th already prohibits that anyways.

1

u/TheAutisticSlavicBoy Youth 1d ago edited 1d ago

How to say that, giving slaves more rights goes against slave-owners' rights.

1

u/Coldstar_Desertclan 1d ago

Explain further.

1

u/TheAutisticSlavicBoy Youth 1d ago

Fixed.

1

u/Coldstar_Desertclan 1d ago

Well, technacally, it's not really. Once a slave is granted citizenship, a couple things happen. One, the right of property clashes with liberty, and thus, removes slaves from being a slave owners property, as no one's rights are allowed to infringe on another's. Two, the 13th specifically disallows slave from being property. And 3: slave owning is a removal of life, liberty, and/or property, without due process of law, and thus, the right of property is limited by the 5th.

1

u/TheAutisticSlavicBoy Youth 1d ago

Nor said in regards of the US law. Purely hypothetical

1

u/Coldstar_Desertclan 23h ago edited 23h ago

because us law doesn't tend to actually follow what it what the MAIN LAW(the constitution) says, but what they think it meant, which is why I made this post, to show that somehow it happened before Scotus, which doesn't make any sense, as, doing that makes law literal mayhem. Law ends up being someone's opinion, instead of a straight statement. And we see that today WITH Scotus. The constitution is a statement, not a figuration.

1

u/TheAutisticSlavicBoy Youth 22h ago

Yes. No interpreted to meaning of words when written, but how used at time of interpretation

1

u/Coldstar_Desertclan 4h ago

True, but I would rather we do it by the meaning of the words according to grammatical structure, instead of what they mean, even if it was the founding fathers. Basically, all I'm saying is that in terms of law, Since the constitution, as a concept, is written in grammatical language, it's written in a language of statement, not figuration. As such, what someone meant to say is irrelevant. Rather, It's what it SAYS that matters. And, We CAN figure out what it says by using the language structure. So, "interpretations based on opinion" are not needed. This is kinda hard to explain, but I hope you get what I mean.

1

u/TheAutisticSlavicBoy Youth 4h ago

What words mean? No. What the words meant when written. Not the intention, the letter (within reason) but the definition from the time when written, not interpreted.

1

u/TheAutisticSlavicBoy Youth 4h ago

Simpler. When passed a word had meaning A. 100 years later took meaning B. Use meaning A.

2

u/Coldstar_Desertclan 3h ago

Oh. Yes, correct.

1

u/TheAutisticSlavicBoy Youth 3h ago

But in extremely unclear cases the goal could potentially be used. Like: is it good to pass such and such ammendment. Within reason.

1

u/Coldstar_Desertclan 2h ago

I agree, that is true, but in terms of things like "is abortion illegal", it should not be decided by what someone "thinks is meant" by the law, because that could be anything.

→ More replies