Need An Explanation on this Constitution Sh*t, Guys........

[AZGrizFan]

Really? Then why establish the mechanism?

Its all about checks-and-balances my friend. its a beautiful system.

The 13th and 14th Amendments are great examples.

Exactly. Both great ideas (while not getting into the "anchor baby" argument) that were accomplished through the AMENDMENT process. Not through somebody's interpretation of what the constitution actually MEANS.

[danefan]

Its all about checks-and-balances my friend. its a beautiful system.

The 13th and 14th Amendments are great examples.

Exactly. Both great ideas (while not getting into the "anchor baby" argument) that were accomplished through the AMENDMENT process. Not through somebody's interpretation of what the constitution actually MEANS.

They highlight the reason for the Amendment process and answer your question - as a check and balance on the power of the 3 legislative brancehes, including the Judiciary.

This is support for my proposition that the Amendment process and the flexibility of the constitution are not mutually exclusive ideas.

[CitadelGrad]

If it's going to "grow", it shoudl be through the mechanism that was established when it was written....called an AMENDMENT, not through the twisted interpretation of activist judges and politicians with an agenda.

Remember - that's your opinion and its the minority opinion in American history.

Then why have an amendment process? Hell, why even have a constitution?

[AZGrizFan]

Exactly. Both great ideas (while not getting into the "anchor baby" argument) that were accomplished through the AMENDMENT process. Not through somebody's interpretation of what the constitution actually MEANS.

They highlight the reason for the Amendment process and answer your question - as a check and balance on the power of the 3 legislative brancehes, including the Judiciary.

This is support for my proposition that the Amendment process and the flexibility of the constitution are not mutually exclusive ideas.

How do you figure THAT? They saw a flaw in our constitution. They FIXED those flaws with AMENDMENTS. Not by "interpreting". Not by "presidential decree". By an AMENDMENT. The only "flexibility" within the constitution is the ability to AMEND the constitution when it doesn't reflect the will of the people.

[Cap'n Cat]

First, danefan is positively correct. Hysteria rules and Conks dig hysteria. Hats off to danefan for being about the only other reasonable person in this thread. AZGF - why can't you produce a list, big man? Lots of guns to a lot of Conk heads, I see. And, typical of Conks, you challenge them on their bullshit they turn into bumbling, fumbling Michael Steele-Sarah Palinesque fools, doging and deflecting and smokescreening.

Second, no Conk with a level head could provide a list of things the guy is doing to sh*t on the Constitution. I thought that would be the case. Like Rush Limbaugh, they enjoy the sound of their own voices and if it's somehow catchy and jingly (and Sarah Palin mouths it), they grab on to it and suck it to death like so many lamprey eels.


"Obama is the devil! Drill, baby, drill! Replace and repeal! Close the borders! Niqqers must die!"



Courteous, non-partisan and respectful as Cap'n Cat is, he will give Conks another chance to enumerate the Constitutional violations happening at the hands of the Obama administration. I want to know because I need to decide whether my life or those of my family are in danger of a communist takeover and whether it's high time I join the Teabaggers. So many people can't be wrong, can they????

Please:
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________

[danefan]

They highlight the reason for the Amendment process and answer your question - as a check and balance on the power of the 3 legislative brancehes, including the Judiciary.

This is support for my proposition that the Amendment process and the flexibility of the constitution are not mutually exclusive ideas.

How do you figure THAT? They saw a flaw in our constitution. They FIXED those flaws with AMENDMENTS. Not by "interpreting". Not by "presidential decree". By an AMENDMENT. The only "flexibility" within the constitution is the ability to AMEND the constitution when it doesn't reflect the will of the people.

This is an issue that you fall on one side of the fence or the other. I don't view the Amendment process as one that is mutually exlcusive from the right of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in accordance with modern times. I refuse to believe that our Constitution is only appropriately applied using the 223 year-old beliefs without any consideration for the consequences of that application. That makes no sense at all. Our society would be a complete and utter mess if that was the case.

[Cap'n Cat]

How do you figure THAT? They saw a flaw in our constitution. They FIXED those flaws with AMENDMENTS. Not by "interpreting". Not by "presidential decree". By an AMENDMENT. The only "flexibility" within the constitution is the ability to AMEND the constitution when it doesn't reflect the will of the people.

This is an issue that you fall on one side of the fence or the other. I don't view the Amendment process as one that is mutually exlcusive from the right of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in accordance with modern times. I refuse to believe that our Constitution is only appropriately applied using the 223 year-old beliefs without any consideration for the consequences of that application. That makes no sense at all. Our society would be a complete and utter mess if that was the case.

Exactly. Constitutionalist purists are the equivalent of religious fanatics. Just plain dumb. They view and embrace the Constitution the same way a radical Muslim views and embraces the Quran. Think about that, Conks, while you sew that border vigilante Minuteman flag patch on your wife's burka.

[danefan]

This is an issue that you fall on one side of the fence or the other. I don't view the Amendment process as one that is mutually exlcusive from the right of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in accordance with modern times. I refuse to believe that our Constitution is only appropriately applied using the 223 year-old beliefs without any consideration for the consequences of that application. That makes no sense at all. Our society would be a complete and utter mess if that was the case.

Exactly. Constitutionalist purists are the equivalent of religious fanatics. Just plain dumb. They view and embrace the Constitution the same way a radical Muslim views and embraces the Quran. Think about that, Conks, while you sew that border vigilante Minuteman flag patch on your wife's burka.

That made me spit out my coffee.

See you're funny hasn't totally disapeared.

[Cap'n Cat]

Exactly. Constitutionalist purists are the equivalent of religious fanatics. Just plain dumb. They view and embrace the Constitution the same way a radical Muslim views and embraces the Quran. Think about that, Conks, while you sew that border vigilante Minuteman flag patch on your wife's burka.

That made me spit out my coffee.

See you're funny hasn't totally disapeared.

[AZGrizFan]

This is an issue that you fall on one side of the fence or the other. I don't view the Amendment process as one that is mutually exlcusive from the right of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in accordance with modern times. I refuse to believe that our Constitution is only appropriately applied using the 223 year-old beliefs without any consideration for the consequences of that application. That makes no sense at all. Our society would be a complete and utter mess if that was the case.

Exactly. Constitutionalist purists are the equivalent of religious fanatics. Just plain dumb. They view and embrace the Constitution the same way a radical Muslim views and embraces the Quran. Think about that, Conks, while you sew that border vigilante Minuteman flag patch on your wife's burka.

....says the guy who was screaming bloody murder at Bush's alleged "wiping his ass with the Constitution" through increased Patriot Act powers, illegal wars, illegal wiretaps, etc., etc.

I LOVE how, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you see no problem with interpreting the constitution.

[Wedgebuster]

Exactly. Constitutionalist purists are the equivalent of religious fanatics. Just plain dumb. They view and embrace the Constitution the same way a radical Muslim views and embraces the Quran. Think about that, Conks, while you sew that border vigilante Minuteman flag patch on your wife's burka.

....says the guy who was screaming bloody murder at Bush's alleged "wiping his ass with the Constitution" through increased Patriot Act powers, illegal wars, illegal wiretaps, etc., etc.

I LOVE how, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you see no problem with interpreting the constitution.

Bush was our nation's biggest retard, nobody likes retards messing around with our Constitution. That's the difference.

Glad to be of service, carry on!

[AZGrizFan]

....says the guy who was screaming bloody murder at Bush's alleged "wiping his ass with the Constitution" through increased Patriot Act powers, illegal wars, illegal wiretaps, etc., etc.

I LOVE how, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you see no problem with interpreting the constitution.

Bush was our nation's biggest retard, nobody likes retards messing around with our Constitution. That's the difference.

Glad to be of service, carry on!

Name me a president in the past 40 years that WASN'T.

[Ivytalk]

We know, we know....it's a "living document", right DF?

I'm not sure how "alive" it is, but I sure as hell can't ever believe it hasn't grown one bit since 1787.
I'm half-way through Active Liberty. I'll let you know when I'm done.

Read it two years ago. Four hours of my life I'll never get back.

Bork 1, Breyer 0.

[houndawg]

Bush was our nation's biggest retard, nobody likes retards messing around with our Constitution. That's the difference.

Glad to be of service, carry on!

Name me a president in the past 40 years that WASN'T.

Their combined 'tardedness compared to W is an ant hill sitting next to Mt. Everest.

[Cap'n Cat]

Exactly. Constitutionalist purists are the equivalent of religious fanatics. Just plain dumb. They view and embrace the Constitution the same way a radical Muslim views and embraces the Quran. Think about that, Conks, while you sew that border vigilante Minuteman flag patch on your wife's burka.

....says the guy who was screaming bloody murder at Bush's alleged "wiping his ass with the Constitution" through increased Patriot Act powers, illegal wars, illegal wiretaps, etc., etc.

I LOVE how, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you see no problem with interpreting the constitution.

Um, Z, uh, Cap'n Cat stayed out of the Constitution sh*t with Bush because He thought it was ridiculous. Same as it is now with Obama.

Funny, still, no Conk blowhard here can list for me Obama's Constitutional crimes. Typical.

[OL FU]

We know, we know....it's a "living document", right DF?

I'm not sure how "alive" it is, but I sure as hell can't ever believe it hasn't grown one bit since 1787.
I'm half-way through Active Liberty. I'll let you know when I'm done.

Read the book, basically said there were two trains of thought Modern Libery which protects the individual and Active Liberty or Classical Liberty which protects the rights of citizens participation in government. he also said consequences must be considered not just the text of the law. Generally philosophy is that the will of the people through acts of legislation should receive priority. Good book. and conceptually I agree. He didn't mention a couple of problems with the Active Liberty. The first is that the constitution, in my view anticipated most active liberty to occur at the local level more than the federal level since the fear of the the founders was that the federal government would trample individual and states rights which is one of the reasons we have the bill of rights. Also, he didn't discuss, as far as I remember, how an abortion of a ruling like Roe V Wade fits into his philosophy at all.

The constitution as orginally written has been trampled, but as DF says it has been going on for years with a big kick start in the FDR days when the commerce clause was bastardized.

[Cap'n Cat]

Another Quran/Constitution dolt.

[OL FU]

Another Quran/Constitution dolt.

You really shouldn't call Breyer those type of names


But I hear he does make a pretty good ice cream

[Cap'n Cat]

Another Quran/Constitution dolt.

You really shouldn't call Breyer those type of names


But I hear he does make a pretty good ice cream

Just playing with you, OL, but you jihadist Constitution fvcks are pissing in the wind. Every day, the face of the country turns a little bit more dark-hued, filling up with people who will force the Consty to be fluid and malleable. You guys' schtick will fade steadily into the fog of the past (like Reagan's brain, 1983 to 1989) with other Conk-type failures as the Star Wars initiative, No Child Left Behind, tax cuts for the wealthy, and trickle-down economics. So sad to be white and entrecnched at the wrong point in history.

[D1B]

You really shouldn't call Breyer those type of names


But I hear he does make a pretty good ice cream

Just playing with you, OL, but you jihadist Constitution fvcks are pissing in the wind. Every day, the face of the country turns a little bit more dark-hued, filling up with people who will force the Consty to be fluid and malleable. You guys' schtick will fade steadily into the fog of the past (like Reagan's brain, 1983 to 1989) with other Conk-type failures as the Star Wars initiative, No Child Left Behind, tax cuts for the wealthy, and trickle-down economics. So sad to be white and entrecnched at the wrong point in history.

Good to have you back. I can hear the conks running for cover! Cept Baldy and Blueballs.

[OL FU]

You really shouldn't call Breyer those type of names


But I hear he does make a pretty good ice cream

Just playing with you, OL, but you jihadist Constitution fvcks are pissing in the wind. Every day, the face of the country turns a little bit more dark-hued, filling up with people who will force the Consty to be fluid and malleable. You guys' schtick will fade steadily into the fog of the past (like Reagan's brain, 1983 to 1989) with other Conk-type failures as the Star Wars initiative, No Child Left Behind, tax cuts for the wealthy, and trickle-down economics. So sad to be white and entrecnched at the wrong point in history.

I knew you were that is why I responded the way I did.

There is little doubt that those who would prefer a more rigid interpretation of the consitution have significantly lost the battle. The other issues you mentioned of course have little to do with constitutional interpretation but I understand that you have a difficulty seperating issues into the categories they belong

On the other hand, those of use that believe laws should mean what they say can always hope that the march toward governance by judicial fiat can at least be slowed if not halted in order to insure that indiviual liberty and a democracy that is restricted by those individual rights can flourish. I have my fingers crossed

[OL FU]

My view is that "trampling on the Constitution" has been a conservative right "Easy Button" since the Clinton impeachment (really since the Reagan administration - but the "Federalist Society" cronies didn't really get any power until they hooked up with the anti-abortion religious right during the Bush v. Gore campaign.

Sometimes its justified (e.g. certain provisions of the Patriort Act), however most of the time its really just a philosophical policy difference that is in no way a "threat" to the ideals laid down in the Constitution.

But man doesn't "trampling on the Constitution" sound good on TV?


EDIT: And because Obama's black.

I do think the wording "Trampling on the constitution" is over the top since we all agree that if (notice I said if) the constitution has been trampled on, it has been going on for years. I do think however there is an argument to be made against further expansions of the federal government's authority under the constitution. For example, the health care reform is a good example. Call it a tax, call it a penalty, call it whatever, but the ability of the federal government to mandate a commerical activity from its citizens or tax them if they don't participate should be a concern to all and the consequences ( to take into consideration Breyer's arguments) for future ramifications of this ability should be reviewed with care.

[danefan]

My view is that "trampling on the Constitution" has been a conservative right "Easy Button" since the Clinton impeachment (really since the Reagan administration - but the "Federalist Society" cronies didn't really get any power until they hooked up with the anti-abortion religious right during the Bush v. Gore campaign.

Sometimes its justified (e.g. certain provisions of the Patriort Act), however most of the time its really just a philosophical policy difference that is in no way a "threat" to the ideals laid down in the Constitution.

But man doesn't "trampling on the Constitution" sound good on TV?


EDIT: And because Obama's black.

I do think the wording "Trampling on the constitution" is over the top since we all agree that if (notice I said if) the constitution has been trampled on, it has been going on for years. I do think however there is an argument to be made against further expansions of the federal government's authority under the constitution. For example, the health care reform is a good example. Call it a tax, call it a penalty, call it whatever, but the ability of the federal government to mandate a commerical activity from its citizens or tax them if they don't participate should be a concern to all and the consequences ( to take into consideration Breyer's arguments) for future ramifications of this ability should be reviewed with care.

And that's fine with me and a valid exercise. Everything the government does should be tested to determine whether its within the bounds of the Constitution. As I mentioned in the Virginia thread, this is not an issue that is really well defined and as such it does not lend itself to a summary judgment either way. Its also a policy decision that was developed within the merky boundaries laid down by the Supreme Court.

To me, to "Trample on the Constitution " means to do something or pass some law that is blatantly in violation of the clear boundaries of the Constitution. I haven't seen anything like that occur in my lifetime, with the exception of perhaps what the Bush administration tried to do with the prisoners in Gitmo. But even that is questionable.

BTW, off topic, but the Prop 8 ruling is expected today out of the Cali District Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Bush isnt anywhere near as retarded as the current guy or Carter.

He would kick both their asses in a classroom or in a ring. Bush did some great things and is possibly one of the top 5 leaders in the history of the world. Few could have lead us out of 9-11, Hurricane Katrina and kept the stock market as high as any president has had it EVER.

[OL FU]

I do think the wording "Trampling on the constitution" is over the top since we all agree that if (notice I said if) the constitution has been trampled on, it has been going on for years. I do think however there is an argument to be made against further expansions of the federal government's authority under the constitution. For example, the health care reform is a good example. Call it a tax, call it a penalty, call it whatever, but the ability of the federal government to mandate a commerical activity from its citizens or tax them if they don't participate should be a concern to all and the consequences ( to take into consideration Breyer's arguments) for future ramifications of this ability should be reviewed with care.

And that's fine with me and a valid exercise. Everything the government does should be tested to determine whether its within the bounds of the Constitution. As I mentioned in the Virginia thread, this is not an issue that is really well defined and as such it does not lend itself to a summary judgment either way. Its also a policy decision that was developed within the merky boundaries laid down by the Supreme Court.

To me, to "Trample on the Constitution " means to do something or pass some law that is blatantly in violation of the clear boundaries of the Constitution. I haven't seen anything like that occur in my lifetime, with the exception of perhaps what the Bush administration tried to do with the prisoners in Gitmo. But even that is questionable.

BTW, off topic, but the Prop 8 ruling is expected today out of the Cali District Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would suggest Roe Versus Wade clearly violated the constitution. If Congress had passed a law legalizing abortion and the Supreme Court had upheld it that would have been one thing. But RvW created a constitutional right out of thin air. but that might not have occurred during your lifetime.

As I said before, I agree that Trampling the Constitution is political stagemanship.