Absoulte, basic question for the lefties

[rational]

I may be assumming too much, but I'm going to assume you lefties have a basic understanding of U.S. history. What I want to know is, since this country was founded with our Constitution as its guide, why do you want to veer so far from what our Constitution states? The minimal role of the Federal government that was intended by the patriots, and outlined in the Constitution, is quite straightforward. Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

[rational]

No, absoulte is not a new government-mandated, French made, healthcare product.

[Vic Daring]

Plurium interrogationum.

[m'head]

I'll take the bait.
You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Constitution as a "guide." It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the courts and the legislature.

Otherwise it would be a document of bondage and we would be bound by 18th century cultural anomalies, like slavery and women as second class citizens.

[rational]

But the minimal role of the Federal government is clear. Please defend the left's desire to have so much Federal involvement with all aspects of our society.

And why do you have a picture of a cold-blooded murderer for your signature line?

[ALBOB2]

I'll take the bait.
You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Constitution as a "guide." It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the courts and the legislature.

Otherwise it would be a document of bondage and we would be bound by 18th century cultural anomalies, like slavery and women as second class citizens.

So basically the original poster was absolutely wrong when he assumed you had a basic knowledge/understanding of U.S. history. :rolleyes:

The "courts" are NOT supposed to interpret the Constitution. The ONLY court in the land that has that power is the Supreme Court. And when on Earth did the courts start taking part in the modification of the Constitution??? I must have missed that memo. Can you please provide a link? Thank

[SFC(R)L]

The Constitution is not a "guide", nor is it subject to open interpretation and application by anyone.

It is, however, subject to modification by the people through the amendment process.

Courts do not modify the Constitution, they apply it.

[ddye]

I may be assumming too much, but I'm going to assume you lefties have a basic understanding of U.S. history. What I want to know is, since this country was founded with our Constitution as its guide, why do you want to veer so far from what our Constitution states? The minimal role of the Federal government that was intended by the patriots, and outlined in the Constitution, is quite straightforward. Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.
Both parties, indeed, virtually every American has "strayed" from a Constitution that was written for a sparsely populated backwater nation that was a two week trip away from Europe at the time, with no mass communication, basic human services or non-manual labor jobs.

If we kept to strict Constitutional principles we would still be trading beaver pelts and whiskey, with no protection for our food supply, no Interstate highways, child labor, sweat shops, no federal deposit insurance, no protection from monopolies, no financial regulation and a military that disbanded during peace time.

We would be a loose federation of quarreling states with few common interests, and I doubt that we would still be an independent country.

But hey, we'd still have that shiny Constitution!

Doug

P.S. The right has "bent" the Constitution every bit as much as the left has, it's just a matter of which time in history you're talking about.

[m'head]

So basically the original poster was absolutely wrong when he assumed you had a basic knowledge/understanding of U.S. history. :rolleyes:

The "courts" are NOT supposed to interpret the Constitution. The ONLY court in the land that has that power is the Supreme Court. And when on Earth did the courts start taking part in the modification of the Constitution??? I must have missed that memo. Can you please provide a link? Thank

Sloppy language on my part. I should have said:
It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the legislature and enforced by their courts.

The notion that it is somehow a fixed document never to be changed is a common misunderstanding.

[hailreagan]

But the minimal role of the Federal government is clear. Please defend the left's desire to have so much Federal involvement with all aspects of our society.

And why do you have a picture of a cold-blooded murderer for your signature line?
They can't do it.

[ModerateVoice]

Both parties, indeed, virtually every American has "strayed" from a Constitution that was written for a sparsely populated backwater nation that was a two week trip away from Europe at the time, with no mass communication, basic human services or non-manual labor jobs.

If we kept to strict Constitutional principles we would still be trading beaver pelts and whiskey, with no protection for our food supply, no Interstate highways, child labor, sweat shops, no federal deposit insurance, no protection from monopolies, no financial regulation and a military that disbanded during peace time.

We would be a loose federation of quarreling states with few common interests, and I doubt that we would still be an independent country.

But hey, we'd still have that shiny Constitution!

Doug

P.S. The right has "bent" the Constitution every bit as much as the left has, it's just a matter of which time in history you're talking about.

What's wrong with trading beaver pelts and whiskey? :razz:

[Buffalo]

I blame Lincoln.

[Mojotiger]

I blame Lincoln.

Lincoln blames Bush.

[misterblue]

So basically the original poster was absolutely wrong when he assumed you had a basic knowledge/understanding of U.S. history. :rolleyes:

The "courts" are NOT supposed to interpret the Constitution. The ONLY court in the land that has that power is the Supreme Court. And when on Earth did the courts start taking part in the modification of the Constitution??? I must have missed that memo. Can you please provide a link? Thank

Its called legislating from the bench

[Buffalo]

Lincoln blames Bush.
Bush blames Clinton. Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

[Mojotiger]

Bush blames Clinton. Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

Lol...

[JerryN]

Would we be having this discussion without the 16th Amendment?

I believe this distortion of Federal power is the result of monetary power.
With the ability to collect money from the people directly rather than relying on the states,
the federal government has reversed the power roles so that now the states beg for money.

This is totally WRONG! States should be taking care of their own needs locally.
Instead the US is dictating things like speed limits, drinking age, seat belts, etc. thru their fiscal power.

[deportalllibs]

P.S. The right has "bent" the Constitution every bit as much as the left has, it's just a matter of which time in history you're talking about.

I'm so sick of the left's "everybody does it so its okay" excuse. The left has no respect for the law beyond being a tool to twist and distort to promote their stupid agenda.

Look at whats going on in MA today. A few years ago they were worried about a republican governer appointing a republican replacement for Kerry so they changed the law to prevent the governer from appointing someone. A few years later the exact same situation exists only reversed, now they want to change the law back so that a democrat governer CAN appoint a dem replacement for Kennedy. The left embodies HYPOCRISY.

[harumph]

I'm so sick of the left's "everybody does it so its okay" excuse. The left has no respect for the law beyond being a tool to twist and distort to promote their stupid agenda.

Look at whats going on in MA today. A few years ago they were worried about a republican governer appointing a republican replacement for Kerry so they changed the law to prevent the governer from appointing someone. A few years later the exact same situation exists only reversed, now they want to change the law back so that a democrat governer CAN appoint a dem replacement for Kennedy. The left embodies HYPOCRISY.
Hypocrisy from the left is expected and, therefore, accepted (by the left). Hypocrisy from the right is frowned upon because they challenge themselves to live above it. IOW, the left sees hypocrisy (among their own) as a tool, whereas the right sees it as a flaw, regardless of political persuasion.

[ALBOB2]

The notion that it is somehow a fixed document never to be changed is a common misunderstanding.

Now THAT is something we can agree on. But one basic difference I see between the left and the right is their opion on HOW it gets changed and by whom.

There are very specific provisions written into the Constitution on how it can be changed. I wish "we" would stick to those provisions as opposed to the afore mentioned "legislating from the bench".

[pdmike]

I may be assumming too much, but I'm going to assume you lefties have a basic understanding of U.S. history. What I want to know is, since this country was founded with our Constitution as its guide, why do you want to veer so far from what our Constitution states? The minimal role of the Federal government that was intended by the patriots, and outlined in the Constitution, is quite straightforward. Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

State's rights, huh? That worked quite well didn't it? Ah, the sixties . . .

[rational]

Still waiting for an answer from the lefties:

Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

[rational]

I think the answer is clear, the lefties know it is not good for our country, but don't care. They would rather have our country fall than admit they are wrong to continue to go along with the socialization joy ride Obama has us on.

[blackmesa741]

Hypocrisy from the left is expected and, therefore, accepted (by the left). Hypocrisy from the right is frowned upon because they challenge themselves to live above it. IOW, the left sees hypocrisy (among their own) as a tool, whereas the right sees it as a flaw, regardless of political persuasion.

Are you seriously contending that liberals have a monopoly on hypocrisy?

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

The Constitution is not a "guide", nor is it subject to open interpretation and application by anyone.

It is, however, subject to modification by the people through the amendment process.

Courts do not modify the Constitution, they apply it.

Which, of course, explains why there are five major schools of thought on the Constitution.

[blackmesa741]

I think the answer is clear, the lefties know it is not good for our country, but don't care. They would rather have our country fall than admit they are wrong to continue to go along with the socialization joy ride Obama has us on.

So I assume, then, you are a "righty"? Does that mean you support the government intervention into the marriage realm, as far as who gets to marry whom they choose and who does NOT enjoy that ability? How about government getting involved in abortion rights?

Also, it is difficult to take you seriously when you imply that "lefties" are rooting for the "fall" of our country. Just because somebody disagrees with you, that doesn't mean they want the country to "fall." Nor does it make them "liars" a la Joe Wilson.

[Radical Leftist]

I may be assumming too much, but I'm going to assume you lefties have a basic understanding of U.S. history. What I want to know is, since this country was founded with our Constitution as its guide, why do you want to veer so far from what our Constitution states? The minimal role of the Federal government that was intended by the patriots, and outlined in the Constitution, is quite straightforward. Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

Our country was founded on the backs of millions of African slaves too, but I don't think we should be re-instituting slavery just because the founders thought it was cool. There are plenty of valid arguments for a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, but "the founders liked it" isn't exactly a strong one.

[Radical Leftist]

I think the answer is clear, the lefties know it is not good for our country, but don't care. They would rather have our country fall than admit they are wrong to continue to go along with the socialization joy ride Obama has us on.
It's quite pathetic and ridiculous how many on this site have convinced themselves that absolutely everybody with a different ideological perspective than them is not just mistaken, but actively trying to hurt the country.

There's no reasoning with people like you who just can't take the fact that some people think differently than you.

[blackmesa741]

It's quite pathetic and ridiculous how many on this site have convinced themselves that absolutely everybody with a different ideological perspective than them is not just mistaken, but actively trying to hurt the country.

There's no reasoning with people like you who just can't take the fact that some people think differently than you.

They think God is on their side. Kinda gives them a 'manifest destiny'...

[m'head]

Still waiting for an answer from the lefties:

Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

Well it's worked pretty well since Teddy Roosevelt. Why fix what ain't broken?

[Jim50]

Sloppy language on my part. I should have said:
It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the legislature and enforced by their courts.

The notion that it is somehow a fixed document never to be changed is a common misunderstanding.

And since there is an amendment process who in their right might ever thought it was a "fixed" document as you say? I think there are a lot of people who need to take a basic civics class again.

[Mohawk5]

This is not a left or right issue. Both have usurped the Constitution.

[Drawz]

So then. I'll assume that everyone here in favor of upholding the Constitution "as written" is vehemently opposed to warrentless wiretapping?

[Rurudyne]

So then. I'll assume that everyone here in favor of upholding the Constitution "as written" is vehemently opposed to warrentless wiretapping?
Among other things.

But if the welfare state is legal on account of the misconstruction of A1:S8:C1 then so too would be a literal police state. If they can ignore the 10th on account of the one then they can ignore other stuff too on account of the other.

Why don't social progressives like warrentless wiretaps?

[Jim50]

Among other things.

But if the welfare state is legal on account of the misconstruction of A1:S8:C1 then so too would be a literal police state. If they can ignore the 10th on account of the one then they can ignore other stuff too on account of the other.

Why don't social progressives like warrentless wiretaps?

They are all for them so the government knows when you've fallen and can't get up so they can send the death panel to your home.

[TerriC]

And since there is an amendment process who in their right might ever thought it was a "fixed" document as you say? I think there are a lot of people who need to take a basic civics class again.

Sure, as long as it isnt taught be a liberal professor.... oh, wait...

[Rurudyne]

They are all for them so the government knows when you've fallen and can't get up so they can send the death panel to your home.
Bada*boom*kish!

[Canoedude]

I'll take the bait.
You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Constitution as a "guide." It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the courts and the legislature.

Otherwise it would be a document of bondage and we would be bound by 18th century cultural anomalies, like slavery and women as second class citizens.

It is NOT a guide. It is a Constitution..the binding document of a society. It is NOT a living document as you put but one that can be modified but only under the strictest of means to avoid changing daily to match opinion polls.

Also, it is NOT to be modified by the court and the legislature. It clearly sets forth how the Constitution can be amended and its not by Circuit Courts and "policy".

The US Constitution is wise beyond its years and while the language is 18th century, the clear intent it timeless.

Country Club by-laws are living documents. The US Constitution is not.

[agent_86]

I'll take the bait.
You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Constitution as a "guide." It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the courts and the legislature.

Otherwise it would be a document of bondage and we would be bound by 18th century cultural anomalies, like slavery and women as second class citizens.

There was an amendment expanding the government's role to USSR levels. I must have missed that...

[m'head]

It is NOT a guide. It is a Constitution..the binding document of a society. It is NOT a living document as you put but one that can be modified but only under the strictest of means to avoid changing daily to match opinion polls.

Also, it is NOT to be modified by the court and the legislature. It clearly sets forth how the Constitution can be amended and its not by Circuit Courts and "policy".

The US Constitution is wise beyond its years and while the language is 18th century, the clear intent it timeless.

Country Club by-laws are living documents. The US Constitution is not.

I think that if you read your post out loud you might be able to catch its internal inconsistencies.

While the changes might only be made under strict circumstances, they are made somewhat routinely over its 222 year history. To date there have been 27, or about one every 10 years. As other posters have noted, if the Consitution was fixed in concrete we'd still have slaves and women would not be allowed to vote.

Allegedly courts merely enforce the laws, but when the law cited is the Constitution, it takes the opinions of 9 people to interpret it. Rarely do we have 9-0 decisions and frequently the impact of those decisions creates either new law or law that will be applied differently in the future than it is today.

The founding fathers were bright, but not omniscient. And the only way the US grows its greatness is to adapt to a changing world.

One of the Constitution's best attributes is its flexibility, ensuring that we don't get stuck with laws that hamper progress and keep us living the sins of the past.

[rational]

So then. I'll assume that everyone here in favor of upholding the Constitution "as written" is vehemently opposed to warrentless wiretapping?

If it's warrantless wiretapping of non-citizens, then I'm all in favor of it! Our Constitution is for our citizens. Liberals seem to forget that.

And the other poster who asked whether I thought the government should be involved with abortion, the answer is obviously yes! The most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution is the right to life. Abortion takes away that right of millions every year, without constitutional, moral, or any other, reason. I don't want to start yet another abortion thread, but the bottom line is, and this is absolutely true, unborn humans are HUMANS! (I really can't understand why you pro-abortionists try to argue otherwise, you only make yourselves look more foolish than you already are)

[dad49er]

I may be assumming too much, but I'm going to assume you lefties have a basic understanding of U.S. history. What I want to know is, since this country was founded with our Constitution as its guide, why do you want to veer so far from what our Constitution states? The minimal role of the Federal government that was intended by the patriots, and outlined in the Constitution, is quite straightforward. Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

See "Supreme Court rulings".

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

So which of the four schools of thought on the Constitution (perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism and fundamentalism) is the correct one?

[rational]

I'm still waiting for one of you liberals to defend our ever bigger government as the best path for our nation.

[toreyj01]

I always find people lecturing me on adherence to the Constitution all the while overlooking the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, and the like.

So its only good if you do it, of course, to protect us from the "evil doers".

Right. Gotcha.

[brody]

I'll take the bait.
You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Constitution as a "guide." It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the courts and the legislature.

Otherwise it would be a document of bondage and we would be bound by 18th century cultural anomalies, like slavery and women as second class citizens.
There is a process provided in the Constitution which provides a means to "update" the Constitution - it is called the Amendment Process.

Liberals "update and modify" the Constitution by dancing around it and the use of subversion.

Notice that there have been AMENDMENTS to the Constitution to address slavery and womens' rights.

[agent_86]

I always find people lecturing me on adherence to the Constitution all the while overlooking the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, and the like.

So its only good if you do it, of course, to protect us from the "evil doers".

Right. Gotcha.

I was for the PA during a time of war, but since we're no longer at war with anyone. We should probably cutback on all that safety ********.

[croupier101]

Plurium interrogationum.

I second this answer.

[Czhorat]

I'm still waiting for one of you liberals to defend our ever bigger government as the best path for our nation.

OK, I'll take a quick stab at this.

First, I believe in a broader interpretation of the Constitution than you seem to; most Supreme Court precedent seems to be on my side. A great many Federal powers can be justified as constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.

Why is a stronger central government better? The fact is that we don't live in a late 18th or early 19th Century world anymore. A few bullet points:


Business routinely operate across not only state lines, but international boundaries.
Greater understanding of environmental issues as well as a greater ability to cause environmental harm have created a need for regulations.
Improvements in travel and communications have made it much more possible for rules, regulations, problems, ideas, and solutions to be communicated across the country. This would have been unthinkable two hundred years ago.
In short, a modern world requires a modern government. Today's health care debate, for example, would not be imaginable to Jefferson, Madison, et al. Why? Because the technologies and scale of today's health care system would have been unimaginable to them. To me, this means that we interpret their words broadly so we can come up with solutions that work for today's world.

[brody]

...most Supreme Court precedent seems to be on my side.
That's really all you needed to say.

[agent_86]

OK, I'll take a quick stab at this.

First, I believe in a broader interpretation of the Constitution than you seem to; most Supreme Court precedent seems to be on my side. A great many Federal powers can be justified as constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.

Why is a stronger central government better? The fact is that we don't live in a late 18th or early 19th Century world anymore. A few bullet points:


Business routinely operate across not only state lines, but international boundaries.
Greater understanding of environmental issues as well as a greater ability to cause environmental harm have created a need for regulations.
Improvements in travel and communications have made it much more possible for rules, regulations, problems, ideas, and solutions to be communicated across the country. This would have been unthinkable two hundred years ago.
In short, a modern world requires a modern government. Today's health care debate, for example, would not be imaginable to Jefferson, Madison, et al. Why? Because the technologies and scale of today's health care system would have been unimaginable to them. To me, this means that we interpret their words broadly so we can come up with solutions that work for today's world.

Yep, people are stupid and government is smarter therefore should govern the stupid people. Not really constitutional.

[Czhorat]

Yep, people are stupid and government is smarter therefore should govern the stupid people. Not really constitutional.

That's not what I said. Not even close.

[m'head]

OK. All you who say the Constitution is fixed in concrete and not subject to interpretation:

Read Dred Scott vs. Sanders and Brown vs. Board of Education. What was the right and proper decision in each of those cases before the Supreme Court - the one that required only enforcement and no interpretation?

[rational]

OK, I'll take a quick stab at this.

First, I believe in a broader interpretation of the Constitution than you seem to; most Supreme Court precedent seems to be on my side. A great many Federal powers can be justified as constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.

Why is a stronger central government better? The fact is that we don't live in a late 18th or early 19th Century world anymore. A few bullet points:


Business routinely operate across not only state lines, but international boundaries.
Greater understanding of environmental issues as well as a greater ability to cause environmental harm have created a need for regulations.
Improvements in travel and communications have made it much more possible for rules, regulations, problems, ideas, and solutions to be communicated across the country. This would have been unthinkable two hundred years ago.
In short, a modern world requires a modern government. Today's health care debate, for example, would not be imaginable to Jefferson, Madison, et al. Why? Because the technologies and scale of today's health care system would have been unimaginable to them. To me, this means that we interpret their words broadly so we can come up with solutions that work for today's world.

At least you came close to answering my question!

Yes, our world is different from that of the founding fathers, but the basics of our government did not need to change to accomodate the changes in technology and other aspects of modern life. We are clearly far removed from what our country was intended to be, with the Federal government involved with far more aspects of our country than could ever be justified by our constitution, or legitimate interpretation of the constitution by the supreme court.

The bottom line: knowing how inefficient, incompetent, and corrupt, our Federal government is, how can anyone think that having even more Federal control/involvement with so many more aspects of our society than we have ever had, is good for our country?

[jmb6]

Both parties, indeed, virtually every American has "strayed" from a Constitution that was written for a sparsely populated backwater nation that was a two week trip away from Europe at the time, with no mass communication, basic human services or non-manual labor jobs.

If we kept to strict Constitutional principles we would still be trading beaver pelts and whiskey, with no protection for our food supply, no Interstate highways, child labor, sweat shops, no federal deposit insurance, no protection from monopolies, no financial regulation and a military that disbanded during peace time.

We would be a loose federation of quarreling states with few common interests, and I doubt that we would still be an independent country.

But hey, we'd still have that shiny Constitution!

Doug

P.S. The right has "bent" the Constitution every bit as much as the left has, it's just a matter of which time in history you're talking about.


Wow, just, wow. Now I know why there is no hope for us.

[jmb6]

OK. All you who say the Constitution is fixed in concrete and not subject to interpretation:

Read Dred Scott vs. Sanders and Brown vs. Board of Education. What was the right and proper decision in each of those cases before the Supreme Court - the one that required only enforcement and no interpretation?

I will bite:

In the Dread Scott case, did the state not set him free? And the Constitution reversed it? If the Constitution had left the decision up to the states to decide (Citizenship in the United States is dependent on citizenship in each individual state) he should have been allowed to remain free.

In Brown, it looks like the Supreme court was correct in stating that the separation of Blacks and Whites was unconstitutional.

Brown's overturning of previous cases proves that straying from the constitutions original intent has unintended consequences. If the letter of the constitution was indeed followed, there would have been no need for the Brown ruling in the first place.

[jmb6]

I always find people lecturing me on adherence to the Constitution all the while overlooking the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, and the like.

So its only good if you do it, of course, to protect us from the "evil doers".

Right. Gotcha.

I am against both the Patriot Act and Warrent-less wiretapping. Both seem to be OK with our current President.

[bloods vs crips]

Still waiting for an answer from the lefties:

Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

why are you directing this question at "lefties?" There's certainly no proof they want any larger a government than the "righties."

[Rurudyne]

I will bite:

In the Dread Scott case, did the state not set him free? And the Constitution reversed it? If the Constitution had left the decision up to the states to decide (Citizenship in the United States is dependent on citizenship in each individual state) he should have been allowed to remain free.
Here you have a problem for a State could not, under the Constitution, free a slave no matter what their local laws were. This per: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shal, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

One side note: a State could not be required to expend its own resources under this clause to help find escaped slaves (or prisoners escaped from a chain gang, for what it's worth) but when an escaped slave was actually found neither could they legally protect them from being taken back.

[bloods vs crips]

I always find people lecturing me on adherence to the Constitution all the while overlooking the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, and the like.

So its only good if you do it, of course, to protect us from the "evil doers".

Right. Gotcha.

You'll find some of us are quite a bit more consistent.

[TonkaTim]

Sloppy language on my part. I should have said:
It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the legislature and enforced by their courts.

The notion that it is somehow a fixed document never to be changed is a common misunderstanding.


If it is a "living" document that can change at the whim & whimsy of politicos why is one even needed? It might as well say

"We foams us sum gubbermint
We gots us a Prezeedint
We gots us sum lawmockers
We gots us sum coats
We gots us Arm'mees
We gots us Na'bees
We gots us sum po'leeses
Go forf and rulze us boss"

[Czhorat]

At least you came close to answering my question!

Yes, our world is different from that of the founding fathers, but the basics of our government did not need to change to accomodate the changes in technology and other aspects of modern life. We are clearly far removed from what our country was intended to be, with the Federal government involved with far more aspects of our country than could ever be justified by our constitution, or legitimate interpretation of the constitution by the supreme court.
I disagree with you here. To give just one example, a modern financial system, for example, is much more complex than anything that existed in the 18th century. Such a complex system needs regulation to be able to run effectively while protecting people from fraud and abuse.

This country's was founders foresaw individual states handling most of their own affairs, an agrarian economy, no standing army, and a very limited Federal government. The amount of business that crosses state lines makes centralization very attractive and an emphasis on more local government a possible impediment to business.


[qupte]
The bottom line: knowing how inefficient, incompetent, and corrupt, our Federal government is, how can anyone think that having even more Federal control/involvement with so many more aspects of our society than we have ever had, is good for our country?[/quote]

I'll answer your question with a question: How can you trust private industry given how badly the free market overvalued dotcom stocks in the 1980s, how group think created an artificial housing bubble which caused a major financial meltdown in its collapse, and how companies like Enron cynically manipulated energy supplies, causing rolling brownouts in California and eventually leading to their collapse through mismanagement?

[Czhorat]

If it is a "living" document that can change at the whim & whimsy of politicos why is one even needed? It might as well say

You don't understand what "living document" means, do you?

[Czhorat]

Brown's overturning of previous cases proves that straying from the constitutions original intent has unintended consequences. If the letter of the constitution was indeed followed, there would have been no need for the Brown ruling in the first place.

It actually proves that one needs to interpret the Constitution for a given situation; there's no explicit language against segregation; it was an intepretation of the language of the Constitution that was applied to the case.

[DelawareGuy]

lest we forget someone said the Constitution is a flawed document

[TonkaTim]

You don't understand what "living document" means, do you?


Of course I do, that is a modern 20th century term that makes the US Constitution a piece of stretchy toilet paper that can mean anything wanted.

Why I wrote the satire of it using parody-slavespeak illustrating where no limits lead.

It is either the finite law of the land changable only by legal constitutional amendment or it worthless.

[DelawareGuy]

so the founding fathers would be in favor of its interpretation which is leading toward an omnipresent , over involved , tyrannical central gov't

funny i always thought thats what they were trying to get away from

[croupier101]

I am glad that the government amended and made changes to the "founders" Constitution. I am glad for the changes this country made from what the "founders" wanted. Screw them, I don't want to live in their utopian vision of the country.

[Czhorat]

Of course I do, that is a modern 20th century term that makes the US Constitution a piece of stretchy toilet paper that can mean anything wanted.

Why I wrote the satire of it using parody-slavespeak illustrating where no limits lead.

It is either the finite law of the land changable only by legal constitutional amendment or it worthless.

Why did you choose "parody-slavespeak"? I'm just curious about that.

So far as a "living document" is concerned, there's a great deal of territory between taking the narrowest reading possible and saying that "anything goes".

Oh yes, and toilet paper isn't stretchy; you need to work on your metaphors.

[TonkaTim]

I am glad that the government amended and made changes to the "founders" Constitution. I am glad for the changes this country made from what the "founders" wanted. Screw them, I don't want to live in their utopian vision of the country.

I'm happy about some constitutional amendments, I thought the Founders were quite wise is implementing a lawful way to improve the document. I am unhappy about modification by illegal decree.

I want to live in country with great freedom and enjoy as much personal liberty as possible.

Sounds like you were taught modern revisionist history and no facts about the Founding Fathers. I hate that happened to you.

[Czhorat]

Sounds like you were taught modern revisionist history and no facts about the Founding Fathers. I hate that happened to you.

What are the "facts" about the Foundnig Fathers as you understand them that you think Croupier doesn't know?

[TonkaTim]

Why did you choose "parody-slavespeak"? I'm just curious about that.

I believe it was obvious, with no limits on authority, one becomes a slave.
You would not enter a contract with me that I could change by decree over you.

So far as a "living document" is concerned, there's a great deal of territory between taking the narrowest reading possible and saying that "anything goes".

Once a contract becomes malleable, changing by decree to suit one party without the consent of the other party... well the end result is obvious.....anything goes.

Oh yes, and toilet paper isn't stretchy; you need to work on your metaphors.

The Charmin Ultra double-roll I use is pretty darn stretchy! & absorbent too!;)

[rational]

why are you directing this question at "lefties?" There's certainly no proof they want any larger a government than the "righties."

So you agree the ever increasing Federal government is bad for the country? If so, why are you still supporting Obama, Pelosi, and their merry band of socialists?

And to the person who mentioned Enron and other problems that supposedly greater Federal government involvement would have prevented: I agree that law enforcement is one of the three primary roles of the Federal government (the other two being national defense, and infrastructure development), and proper law enforcement would have stopped many of the past problems involving financial institutions. The housing bubble, was largely created by the Federal government, so that example actually provides excellent support to the notion that more Federal government involvement hurts our country.

[Czhorat]

And to the person who mentioned Enron and other problems that supposedly greater Federal government involvement would have prevented: I agree that law enforcement is one of the three primary roles of the Federal government (the other two being national defense, and infrastructure development), and proper law enforcement would have stopped many of the past problems involving financial institutions. The housing bubble, was largely created by the Federal government, so that example actually provides excellent support to the notion that more Federal government involvement hurts our country.

You seem to have missed my point. The point was that private enterprise, in many ways, has a terrible track record.

The Enron fiasco was caused laregly by the fallacy that a "free market" in energy would regulate itself.

Even if one were to accept your premise that the housing bubble was "largely created by the Federal Government" (which, incidentally, I think you'd have a hard time backing up), it was loosely regulated financial institutions that created devices like credit default swaps to allow the bubble collapse to propagate through the financial system.

My point wasn't that greater federal involvement would have stopped some of these problems; my point is that there's every bit as much corruption and incompetence in the free market as there is in government.

[Jim50]

Sloppy language on my part. I should have said:
It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the legislature and enforced by their courts.

The notion that it is somehow a fixed document never to be changed is a common misunderstanding.

The Constitution has one and only ONE way to modify it. By Amendment. You should look up how that is done because you obviously do NOT have even a basic understanding.

[F9thRet]

I'll take the bait.
You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Constitution as a "guide." It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the courts and the legislature.

Otherwise it would be a document of bondage and we would be bound by 18th century cultural anomalies, like slavery and women as second class citizens.

The hell it is.

Stephen

[croupier101]

I'm happy about some constitutional amendments, I thought the Founders were quite wise is implementing a lawful way to improve the document. I am unhappy about modification by illegal decree.

I want to live in country with great freedom and enjoy as much personal liberty as possible.

Sounds like you were taught modern revisionist history and no facts about the Founding Fathers. I hate that happened to you.

Save your patronizing, I was taught the facts. And I am glad that the "utopia" the founders envisioned has not occured, and that the correct modifications were made on a founding document that provided rights for less then 1/2 the citizens.

[Rurudyne]

Who says they sought a "utopia"?

Utopias are the terrain of the knaves and fools like those who now hawk the powerful central government and collective responsibility.

(And yet will not hold themselves accountable for anything of all the disaster they cause.)

[croupier101]

Who says they sought a "utopia"?

Utopias are the terrain of the knaves and fools like those who now hawk the powerful central government and collective responsibility.

What I said was clear. The founders backwards views on liberty and freedom had massive consquences to this country, and it took well over a century to fix the fascism, yes fascism, that existed in the original document. Their failings had long reaching consequences, and I am happy to be living in a time after those failures were rectified. The founders had a skewed vision of what freedom is.

[jmb6]

Our country was founded on the backs of millions of African slaves too, but I don't think we should be re-instituting slavery just because the founders thought it was cool. There are plenty of valid arguments for a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, but "the founders liked it" isn't exactly a strong one.

Which is why there are amendments.

[Rurudyne]

What I said was clear. The founders backwards views on liberty and freedom had massive consquences to this country, and it took well over a century to fix the fascism, yes fascism, that existed in the original document. Their failings had long reaching consequences, and I am happy to be living in a time after those failures were rectified. The founders had a skewed vision of what freedom is.
The Liberty they valued is not the "freedom" you seem to enjoin.

They were right and you are wrong.

[croupier101]

The Liberty they valued is not the "freedom" you seem to enjoin.
They didn't value Liberty or Freedom except for themselves. They didn't want a free country.

They were right and you are wrong.
They were wrong and those who share their values of freedom and liberty are no better.

[jmb6]

I'll answer your question with a question: How can you trust private industry given how badly the free market overvalued dotcom stocks in the 1980s, how group think created an artificial housing bubble which caused a major financial meltdown in its collapse, and how companies like Enron cynically manipulated energy supplies, causing rolling brownouts in California and eventually leading to their collapse through mismanagement?

Government policy enabled all of the problems you identified here.

Loose monetary policy and inflation caused both the asset bubbles you mentioned.

Government restrictions limiting entrance of competition into the energy business allowed Enron to act irresponsibly. Regardless of what Enron did, I think we can all agree that the government is there to protect people's property (when they are not forcibly taking it). Whether that means enforcing contracts or whatever.

What the government should not be doing is picking winners and losers. Both political parties do that.

[jmb6]

The Enron fiasco was caused laregly by the fallacy that a "free market" in energy would regulate itself.

Search mises.org for Statism. There is a great article about it on there and it should help you understand that we do not have a free market.

If I am not mistaken, you complained in another thread that Beck distorted opinion as fact. It is the opinion of very many smart people that we in fact do not have a free energy market in the US of A.

[Czhorat]

Search mises.org for Statism. There is a great article about it on there and it should help you understand that we do not have a free market.

There's no such thing as a free market; all markets have some forms of regulation. Part of my point was that the energy market got worse when limitations on the market were weakened, not strenghtened.


If I am not mistaken, you complained in another thread that Beck distorted opinion as fact. It is the opinion of very many smart people that we in fact do not have a free energy market in the US of A.

You might be mistaken; I usually stay out of Glen Beck threads. I rarely watch him and find him to be a raving lunatic spouting conspiracy theories based on the thinnest circumstantial evidence.

My point about the danger of idealizing private industry stands. Unregulated private industry is no better than complete government control. People don't become smarter, more honest, and better simply because they don't work for the government.

[jmb6]

Save your patronizing, I was taught the facts. And I am glad that the "utopia" the founders envisioned has not occured, and that the correct modifications were made on a founding document that provided rights for less then 1/2 the citizens.

Having an amendment process in and of itself proves that they saw the document as a "utopia".

Our government consistently treats it's citizens differently based on economic factors. In both extreme's of the spectrum.

[jmb6]

There's no such thing as a free market; all markets have some forms of regulation. Part of my point was that the energy market got worse when limitations on the market were weakened, not strenghtened.



As someone who likes to be continuously educated what limitations on the market were weakened? If I am not mistaken, they broke the law and were punished accordingly. Both by the free market system in terms of lost profitability and by the government suing them.

My point is, that the resultant set of laws created as a result of the Enron fiasco has made it more difficult for new businesses to get started. You can disagree with my supposition, but, I assume you don't deny that government regulations - environmental, accounting, etc. - increase the cost of doing business in our country.

That being said, the devil is in the details and there are certainly good environmental laws which protect the all important Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where you and I most likely differ is in the margins.



You might be mistaken; I usually stay out of Glen Beck threads. I rarely watch him and find him to be a raving lunatic spouting conspiracy theories based on the thinnest circumstantial evidence.
Sorry, as you can tell, I do not have a lot of posts on this board and sometimes all the Statists run together. ;)

My point about the danger of idealizing private industry stands. Unregulated private industry is no better than complete government control. People don't become smarter, more honest, and better simply because they don't work for the government.

Right and as (I think) I mentioned earlier. Government can protect us from "unregulated" private industry (a farcical statement if I ever heard one), who protects us from an ever growing and crushing government?

[Jim50]

They didn't value Liberty or Freedom except for themselves. They didn't want a free country.

They were wrong and those who share their values of freedom and liberty are no better.

See a therapist about that rabid hate. It's not good for you.

[Jim50]

Our country was founded on the backs of millions of African slaves too, but I don't think we should be re-instituting slavery just because the founders thought it was cool. There are plenty of valid arguments for a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, but "the founders liked it" isn't exactly a strong one.

Someone really needs to go back and read about the history of the United States. And very possibly go see a therapist about their rabid hate.

[Czhorat]

As someone who likes to be continuously educated what limitations on the market were weakened? If I am not mistaken, they broke the law and were punished accordingly. Both by the free market system in terms of lost profitability and by the government suing them.
The limitation on the market that was weakened? It'd the fact that it went from a regulated monopoly to a marketplace in which energy could be sold by one of a number of energy services companies (ESCOs). So, the limitation removed was the fact that it didn't exist.


My point is, that the resultant set of laws created as a result of the Enron fiasco has made it more difficult for new businesses to get started. You can disagree with my supposition, but, I assume you don't deny that government regulations - environmental, accounting, etc. - increase the cost of doing business in our country.
That would be a hard supposition to argue with. I do believe that the costs, social and otherwise, of an unregulated market are greater than the costs of reasonable regulation. I think you would agree on that as well; where we might differ is on the definition of "reasonable"


That being said, the devil is in the details and there are certainly good environmental laws which protect the all important Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where you and I most likely differ is in the margins.

I actually agree with this.

[croupier101]

See a therapist about that rabid hate. It's not good for you.

you first.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Someone really needs to go back and read about the history of the United States. And very possibly go see a therapist about their rabid hate.

You should go back and read a book on Jefferson's presidency and what happened when his principles ran into actual governance.

He's kind of like the Saint Ronnie of the Founders.

[Jim50]

You should go back and read a book on Jefferson's presidency and what happened when his principles ran into actual governance.

He's kind of like the Saint Ronnie of the Founders.

So, I guess you are saying the "Founding Fathers" really were ONLY Jefferson?

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

So, I guess you are saying the "Founding Fathers" really were ONLY Jefferson?

No, I'm saying they had some great ideas but some bad ones too, but they provided a process to fix it, which is the best part.

[psuedostratified]

I may be assumming too much, but I'm going to assume you lefties have a basic understanding of U.S. history. What I want to know is, since this country was founded with our Constitution as its guide, why do you want to veer so far from what our Constitution states? The minimal role of the Federal government that was intended by the patriots, and outlined in the Constitution, is quite straightforward. Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

First off, I'm not a "leftie", but I play one on these forums :)

Secondly, this isn't an "Absolute, basic question" but rather a fairly complicated question that requires more of an essay answer than a simple yes/no (an absolute, basic question would be something like "Do you think the current Federal Government is unconstitutional?").

Thirdly, I don't accept the premise pushed in your question that we have "veered off" from what the Constitution states. There have been many laws passed in our history that have been wholly or partially reversed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. There are many more laws that have never been challenged. But overall, I would suggest that most of the policies and procedures of the Federal government are generally within the scope of the Constitution, or such a challenge would have been heard and prevailed. If you don't agree with that, the Constitution allows you to sue the government to stop such activities and/or push for Constitutional Amendments explicitly banning such activities (or simply vote against those who support these programs, which I would assume you do).

Finally, what is implied in your question is that you believe "lefties" support programs, ideas or policies that are unconstitutional. It would make sense for you to call these out specifically, then see what "lefties" have to say about them.

[psuedostratified]

Right and as (I think) I mentioned earlier. Government can protect us from "unregulated" private industry (a farcical statement if I ever heard one), who protects us from an ever growing and crushing government?

I think that would have to be the voters.

[psuedostratified]

The Constitution has one and only ONE way to modify it. By Amendment. You should look up how that is done because you obviously do NOT have even a basic understanding.

This is true. But interpreting how the Constitution applies to a given law is left to the Supreme Court, subject to the jurisdiction definitions in Article 3. And the principle of legal precedent allows for such interpretations to become the basis on which to judge the application of the Constitution to other laws. This, combined with the intentional vagueness of the language in some areas of the Constitution and the slow but inevitable change in the make-up of the Supreme Court Justices, allows for the application of the Constitution to slowly evolve with the moral standards of the people. Although not strictly "modifying" the Constitution, this process of review, interpretation and precedent does have an enormous impact on how it applies to our daily life.

[psuedostratified]

Originally Posted by Jim50 View Post
The Constitution has one and only ONE way to modify it. By Amendment. You should look up how that is done because you obviously do NOT have even a basic understanding.
This is true. But interpreting how the Constitution applies to a given law is left to the Supreme Court, subject to the jurisdiction definitions in Article 3. And the principle of legal precedent allows for such interpretations to become the basis on which to judge the application of the Constitution to other laws. This, combined with the intentional vagueness of the language in some areas of the Constitution and the slow but inevitable change in the make-up of the Supreme Court Justices, allows for the application of the Constitution to slowly evolve with the moral standards of the people. Although not strictly "modifying" the Constitution, this process of review, interpretation and precedent does have an enormous impact on how it applies to our daily life.

So Jim50, does the truth about how the Supreme Court works change your position?

[Rurudyne]

This "truth" about the Court is not true at all.

The Court has no lawful power to alter the interpretation of the Constitution and this was set forth in no less than Marbury v Madison which actually hinged on the only proper methodology FOR judicial review. That the modern Court pretends otherwise is in fact a breech of contract, for the federal inclusive of all its functions is NOTHING except a creature of a specific contract.

[Jim50]

So Jim50, does the truth about how the Supreme Court works change your position?

You mean there is one and only one way to change the Constitution, by Amendment? No. Interpretation is not a change to the Constitution. It might be a change to the INTERPRETATATION of it. I guess someone needs to go back and study English.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

You mean there is one and only one way to change the Constitution, by Amendment? No. Interpretation is not a change to the Constitution. It might be a change to the INTERPRETATATION of it. I guess someone needs to go back and study English.

So which school of constitutional law is correct: perfectionism, fundamentalism, minimalism or majoritarianism?

[Rurudyne]

Tommy.

The Founders weren't "perfectionist" or else they'd not allowed for amendment.

They weren't majoritarian because the amendment process they provided IS NOT any form of election of representatives or a POTUS and is an entirely separate concern.

That leaves "minimalism" and "fundamentalism" ... both of which are at least somewhat true according to Chief Justice Marshall as per Marbury.

Minimalism is warranted because of the doctrine of delegated powers that is not only enshrined into Law by the 10th but which is further strengthened by the insistence that powers not so delegated are reserved to those besides the federal.

What that means is that they are literally unincorporated and not possessed by the federal. Aforementioned amendment process is the methodology for the further delegation of such powers as the people may deem necessary in the future. This actually echos the fundamental notion advanced by the DoI: that the people establish their governments. Only it further indicates that they also do so, by an approved method, into the future as well. This is what Marshall called the "original right" of the Framers and it is a right we still retain in relation to any specific amendments we should ever successfully adopt.

Then there is "fundamentalism" which I would take as relating to not merely the original right of the Framers and the theory of written constitutions by which they labored but also the Statements and Assertions they made to the several States when they set down their pens to deliver the document for ratification. Remember, this is a common law document and such declarations and statements made in selling a contract are binding as to the intent and functions described therein. What this means is that Hamilton as a Framer and 'salesmen' said is what matters AND NOT what he later said to contradict himself, such as his spurious comments on the term 'general welfare.'

To allow the latter would actually as much allow that he'd never set down the pen at all but had somehow magically retained the power of author over what he himself had never claimed the lawful power to adopt in the first place. This last is really very close, all but indistinguishable, from the very meat of the matter that decided William Marbury's petition: for the decision was actually that neither the Congress nor the Court could act as if these had power to alter the delegation of jurisdiction and authority as set forth in the Constitution, neither alone nor in concert.

[m'head]

So which school of constitutional law is correct: perfectionism, fundamentalism, minimalism or majoritarianism?

There is no such thing as "correct", since it is always a matter of interpretation by the court sitting at that moment.

[Rurudyne]

Also known as "sticking your moistened finger into the air".

[freemind]

Still waiting for an answer from the lefties:

Please explain why you believe an ever encompassing Federal government, and it's many tentacles of state and local government (increasingly funded by Federal tax dollars funneled back to the states, and from states to counties/cities), is best for our country.

Maybe you should ask that question to the righties. What republican president or congress has done anything to reduce the size of the Federal government?

[Rurudyne]

Maybe you should ask that question to the righties. What republican president or congress has done anything to reduce the size of the Federal government?
You must remember that Republicans were actually the progressives until FDR took the Democrats farther and faster than they anticipated. Thus began the era of "Me Too" Republicans of which Senator McCain was just the last example (even if he wasn't called that, he'd still fit among them).

In truth, true federalist and people who want constitutional governance are the "Republicans in Name Only" and not the poorly termed "moderates".

[55SFSDefender]

I blame Lincoln.

Many do. The Civil War redefined the role of the Federal Government. A war that in my opinion was necessary has ultimately led to this monster we are dealing with today.

[Rurudyne]

Many do. The Civil War redefined the role of the Federal Government. A war that in my opinion was necessary has ultimately led to this monster we are dealing with today.
Well, it IS true that if either commander in the field at the first battle of Bull Run hadn't had their head up their arse that we'd be a VERY different country now.

[reflechissez]

Yep, people are stupid and government is smarter therefore should govern the stupid people. Not really constitutional.

how did you do on reading comprehension tests?

[reflechissez]

If it is a "living" document that can change at the whim & whimsy of politicos why is one even needed? It might as well say

"We foams us sum gubbermint
We gots us a Prezeedint
We gots us sum lawmockers
We gots us sum coats
We gots us Arm'mees
We gots us Na'bees
We gots us sum po'leeses
Go forf and rulze us boss"

who are you attempting to imitate?

[waynevan]

Sloppy language on my part. I should have said:
It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the legislature and enforced by their courts.

The notion that it is somehow a fixed document never to be changed is a common misunderstanding.

Nobody says it is a fixed document that should never be changed. The problem is, we are ignoring the supreme law of the land on an almost daily basis. The ideal that we are a nation of laws, not of men, is perhaps our greatest strength. That ideal is in many ways, the SOLE PROPRIETOR of the bill of rights. Without laws, we are nothing. It is not a living document. It is law. Laws can be changed, but we ignore them or apply them unequally at our own great peril.

"Living document". Whatta load of krap.

[Rurudyne]

who are you attempting to imitate?
Two Transformers from the recent movie, maybe?

[psuedostratified]

You mean there is one and only one way to change the Constitution, by Amendment? No. Interpretation is not a change to the Constitution. It might be a change to the INTERPRETATATION of it. I guess someone needs to go back and study English.

Correct. And that interpretation has the effect of creating new rights (such as Right to Privacy), new limitations on power (such as limits on electonic surveillance) and altering the impact of the Constitution on every day life (such as redefining "imminent domain" to allow transfer of private property from one private entity to another). These are all forms of "modification".

[psuedostratified]

To allow the latter would actually as much allow that he'd never set down the pen at all but had somehow magically retained the power of author over what he himself had never claimed the lawful power to adopt in the first place. This last is really very close, all but indistinguishable, from the very meat of the matter that decided William Marbury's petition: for the decision was actually that neither the Congress nor the Court could act as if these had power to alter the delegation of jurisdiction and authority as set forth in the Constitution, neither alone nor in concert.

Precisely. And the effect was that the Supreme Court became the final arbiter on what is Constitutional and what is not.

Now, to get back to the original "basic question" of this thread (which isn't really "basic" at all). How have we "veered off" the Constitution?

[Rurudyne]

Precisely. And the effect was that the Supreme Court became the final arbiter on what is Constitutional and what is not.

Now, to get back to the original "basic question" of this thread (which isn't really "basic" at all). How have we "veered off" the Constitution?

This is not a valid power for the Court.

Even in Marbury we find no hint that the Court ALONE has this power, only that it must consider the Law and the laws and prefer the former.

In fact, the very conclusion of Marbury is that the courts too are to be under the Constitution as the legislature is. To that end it is an absolutely fair and accurate paraphrase of what Marshall wrote to say: "Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only" its own past opinions.

[psuedostratified]

This is not a valid power for the Court.

Even in Marbury we find no hint that the Court ALONE has this power, only that it must consider the Law and the laws and prefer the former.

In fact, the very conclusion of Marbury is that the courts too are to be under the Constitution as the legislature is. To that end it is an absolutely fair and accurate paraphrase of what Marshall wrote to say: "Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only" its own past opinions.

Which simply means that the Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution in determining the constitutionality of a given law. Makes supreme sense.

As Hamilton put it (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp):

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

(emphasis mine)

[Rurudyne]

Yet you must remember that what the Court was invited to do in Marbury was agree with the Congress that it had original jurisdiction where it only had such on appeal.

Simply, the Court lacks any lawful power to "find" a "new right" and there are no "penumbras" from mere opinions of the Court ... for that would be the Court examining itself and not the Constitution. The Court has no lawful power to examine itself to determine what is what. It may only examine the Law.

This is because courts, by their very nature, cannot and should not be able to act but they can only react to what others have done. It is, in fact, the very essence of legislating from the bench that a court presumes power to act at all.

Of the other branches of the federal, it is only Congress that has within the scope of enumerated Powers a right to act and to initiate actions without waiting for others to do something first — something that is true of all legislatures within their own respective jurisdictions.

Thus "Acts" are distinct and superior to mere "opinions".

[psuedostratified]

Yet you must remember that what the Court was invited to do in Marbury was agree with the Congress that it had original jurisdiction where it only had such on appeal.

Simply, the Court lacks any lawful power to "find" a "new right" and there are no "penumbras" from mere opinions of the Court ... for that would be the Court examining itself and not the Constitution. The Court has no lawful power to examine itself to determine what is what. It may only examine the Law.

If the court finds that the Constitution provides protections beyond the literal text of the document itself, that is not "examining itself", it is examining the Constitution. If the court uses precedent in determining the appropriate way to examine the Constitution, that is also not "examining itself", it is respecting the history of the court (something that conservatives should naturally respect). If the court extends the protections of the Constitution to prevent government intervention in our personal lives (like was done with Roe v. Wade or Griswald v. Connecticut), it is also not "examining itself" - it is examining how the Constitution applies to areas of the law not explicitly spelled out in the text (which is intentionally light on details to provide just such opportunities to interpret). As long as such decisions are based on the Constitution and not some other source, there should be no issue with it.

This is because courts, by their very nature, cannot and should not be able to act but they can only react to what others have done. It is, in fact, the very essence of legislating from the bench that a court presumes power to act at all.

All the decisions of the court are reactions. They are reactions to cases brought before it.

Of the other branches of the federal, it is only Congress that has within the scope of enumerated Powers a right to act and to initiate actions without waiting for others to do something first — something that is true of all legislatures within their own respective jurisdictions.

Thus "Acts" are distinct and superior to mere "opinions".

Your conclusion does not draw from your logic. Yes, Congress has the power to act through the powers granted and limitations placed on the legislative process (as does the President through a variety of powers, not least of which is Commander in Chief), but that does not mean that the legislative process is superior to the judicial process when it comes to the Constitution. Article 3 states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority", which means that the court has power of judgment over the law. So "Acts" are not superior to "opinions" when it comes to the question of constitutionality.

[junkmanusf]

The Constitution is not a "guide", nor is it subject to open interpretation and application by anyone.

It is, however, subject to modification by the people through the amendment process.

Courts do not modify the Constitution, they apply it.

In order to "apply" they must "interpret". No?

[psuedostratified]

Nobody says it is a fixed document that should never be changed. The problem is, we are ignoring the supreme law of the land on an almost daily basis.

Can you site an example of this?

The ideal that we are a nation of laws, not of men, is perhaps our greatest strength. That ideal is in many ways, the SOLE PROPRIETOR of the bill of rights. Without laws, we are nothing. It is not a living document. It is law. Laws can be changed, but we ignore them or apply them unequally at our own great peril.

"Living document". Whatta load of krap.

All laws are "living documents" in that it is always up to the judges and juries to decide if a given set of circumstances violate the law. Judges and juries are living, thinking persons with their own biases and perspectives. Laws can rarely be made so explicit and clear that there will never be a case that requires interpretation by living persons and we should never strive for that - the Constitution requires trial by jury for a reason, and that is to ensure that laws are always interpreted by living persons and not by some mechanical application of the text.

[JMikey]

I'll take the bait.
You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Constitution as a "guide." It is a living document, subject to interpretation and modification to meet the needs of the people, as modified by their representatives in the courts and the legislature.

Otherwise it would be a document of bondage and we would be bound by 18th century cultural anomalies, like slavery and women as second class citizens.


You admit that the Constitution already has a process for change (the amendment process) and you give examples of it working to right societal wrongs.

You admit in your own explanation that the Constitution, as it was written, is sufficient.

[DougBH]

Which simply means that the Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution in determining the constitutionality of a given law. Makes supreme sense.

As Hamilton put it (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp):

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

(emphasis mine)

Since he was alive at the time, if Hamilton felt this way the he should have put it in the Constitution. It is not there. Each of the three branches of the federal government are obliged to follow the Constitution in applying their own powers. None is given supremacy. Citing Marbury is circular reasoning. It is Lincoln who tossed the writs of habeas corpus into the trash, right along with the states retained right to secede.
The current status of the courts is probably the results of conflicts between political parties, and the desire to have a court make final decisions rather than be in a state of continual conflict. I suggest this could change as conditions change.

[psuedostratified]

Since he was alive at the time, if Hamilton felt this way the he should have put it in the Constitution. It is not there.

There are numerous interpretations, clarifications and opinions in the Federalist papers that are not directly in the Constitution, but still act as guidelines for the courts to use when interpreting the intent of the Framers. The text of the Constitution itself is intentionally ambiguous in some areas to allow maximum flexibility in interpretation (for example, what exactly does "due process" mean?).

Each of the three branches of the federal government are obliged to follow the Constitution in applying their own powers. None is given supremacy. Citing Marbury is circular reasoning. It is Lincoln who tossed the writs of habeas corpus into the trash, right along with the states retained right to secede.

The Supreme Court is granted the judicial power over all cases within its well-defined jurisdictions. So when they review a law and make a determination as to its constitutionality, they are "following the Constitution in appying their powers".

The current status of the courts is probably the results of conflicts between political parties, and the desire to have a court make final decisions rather than be in a state of continual conflict. I suggest this could change as conditions change.

No, the "current status of the courts" is a direct result of all three branches "following the Constitution in appying their powers".

[waynevan]

Can you site an example of this?

Are you serious? Pick your poison. From Obama firing the CEO of GM, to the Patriot Act if you are a lefty, to campaign finance reform abridging first amendment rights, the list is long long long.



All laws are "living documents" in that it is always up to the judges and juries to decide if a given set of circumstances violate the law. Judges and juries are living, thinking persons with their own biases and perspectives. Laws can rarely be made so explicit and clear that there will never be a case that requires interpretation by living persons and we should never strive for that - the Constitution requires trial by jury for a reason, and that is to ensure that laws are always interpreted by living persons and not by some mechanical application of the text.

Psychobabble. Laws and words have specific meanings and you don't get to change them to fit YOUR circumstances. Shall not be abridged means shall not be abridged no matter how you slice it. So "living persons" are charged with interpreting the Constitution makes it a "living document"? Using the word living several times in the same paragraph does not an argument make.

[psuedostratified]

Are you serious? Pick your poison. From Obama firing the CEO of GM, to the Patriot Act if you are a lefty, to campaign finance reform abridging first amendment rights, the list is long long long.

The CEO of GM resigned, he was not fired. He resigned at the request of the White House, true. But if he'd fought for his job, there's nothing Obama could have done about it.

The Patriot Act has yet to be successfully challenged. Even the ACLU (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=518) has dropped it law suit. So who are you to say it's unconstitutional?

As for campaign finance reform and the first amendment, the Supreme Court found portions to be unconstitutional as part of Buckley v. Valeo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) and struck those provisions down.

So the system seems to me to be working, even though I do not agree with every Supreme Court decision.

Psychobabble. Laws and words have specific meanings and you don't get to change them to fit YOUR circumstances. Shall not be abridged means shall not be abridged no matter how you slice it. So "living persons" are charged with interpreting the Constitution makes it a "living document"? Using the word living several times in the same paragraph does not an argument make.

It's not psychobabble. It's the way the Constitution was meant to work. Terms like "cruel and unusual punishment" were made to be interpreted by thinking persons, otherwise the list of banned punishments would have been explicit. It is not a bad thing to subject the Constitution to interpretation - it is part of the document's genius.