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

[danefan]

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.

I see RvW as nothing more than an interpretation (an admitted stretch), like Dred Scott, that could be overturned by Amendment if the populus really wanted it to be overturned.

[OL FU]

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.

I see RvW as nothing more than an interpretation (an admitted stretch), like Dred Scott, that could be overturned by Amendment if the populus really wanted it to be overturned.

It was certainly an interpretation. One that created a right that didn't exist previously.

[danefan]

I see RvW as nothing more than an interpretation (an admitted stretch), like Dred Scott, that could be overturned by Amendment if the populus really wanted it to be overturned.

It was certainly an interpretation. One that created a right that didn't exist previously.

Or a right that was always there but never specifically stated.

BTW, not to hijak this thread anymore, but I watched a very interesting documentary on abortion two nights ago on HBO. Its called 12th and Delaware.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/12th-a ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

[OL FU]

It was certainly an interpretation. One that created a right that didn't exist previously.

Or a right that was always there but never specifically stated.

BTW, not to hijak this thread anymore, but I watched a very interesting documentary on abortion two nights ago on HBO. Its called 12th and Delaware.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/12th-a ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

I am sorry but that is simply pure hard headedness or misplaced logic (and I actually think you know that but are being a good lawyer and making the argument for the sake of making the argument). Other wise you can explain to me why one would think that the constitution intended for abortion to be a right when it wasn't mentioned and even privacy wasn't mentioned in the constitution. Honestly DF, there is a point when arguers lose their credibility when the obvious conclusion is dismissed.

And don't worry about hijacking the thread. It was not started for the purpose of discussion but simply to bash those with which the Cap'n disagrees.

[danefan]

Or a right that was always there but never specifically stated.

BTW, not to hijak this thread anymore, but I watched a very interesting documentary on abortion two nights ago on HBO. Its called 12th and Delaware.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/12th-a ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

I am sorry but that is simply pure hard headedness or misplaced logic (and I actually think you know that but are being a good lawyer and making the argument for the sake of making the argument). Other wise you can explain to me why one would think that the constitution intended for abortion to be a right when it wasn't mentioned and even privacy wasn't mentioned in the constitution. Honestly DF, there is a point when arguers lose their credibility when the obvious conclusion is dismissed.

And don't worry about hijacking the thread. It was not started for the purpose of discussion but simply to bash those with which the Cap'n disagrees.

We're back on the same sticking point OL. You think if it its not explicity mentioned in the Constitution that the Constitution does not apply. I think otherwise.

I believe its a valid and logical conclusion that the Constitution should protect the private reproductive rights of a woman from government intrusion. The argument on abortion to me is whether or not these reproductive rights extend to abortion. I do not necessarily think the Constitution provides a "Right to Abortion" and if RvW (or Casey) really is doing that then I would disagree with it.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Maybe it should......but IT DOESNT.

It says nowhere in the wording anything of the sort. You might try reading it sometime.

[danefan]

Maybe it should......but IT DOESNT.

It says nowhere in the wording anything of the sort. You might try reading it sometime.

This is exactly the sticking point I've mentioned above with OL.

You think it has to say it in there. I don't.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Looking solely at the text (or lack thereof) of the Constitution ignores the consequences of its application. I cannot believe that type of logic was intended by the Founders of this nation, nor desired by its citizens at any point in our history.

[Col Hogan]

Maybe it should......but IT DOESNT.

It says nowhere in the wording anything of the sort. You might try reading it sometime.

This is exactly the sticking point I've mentioned above with OL.

You think it has to say it in there. I don't.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Looking solely at the text (or lack thereof) of the Constitution ignores the consequences of its application. I cannot believe that type of logic was intended by the Founders of this nation, nor desired by its citizens at any point in our history.

And I guess that's my major beef...the Framers undestood that change would be necessary, and wrote a method to change the Constitution into the document...

Yet people are just too damn lazy to use it...instead counting on "interpreting" the words...

I think many changes are needed to bring it up to date...I just want to see the changes done properly so that they apply to everyone fairly across the board...

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe it should......but IT DOESNT.

It says nowhere in the wording anything of the sort. You might try reading it sometime.

This is exactly the sticking point I've mentioned above with OL.

You think it has to say it in there. I don't.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Looking solely at the text (or lack thereof) of the Constitution ignores the consequences of its application. I cannot believe that type of logic was intended by the Founders of this nation, nor desired by its citizens at any point in our history.

When you start applying 250 year old logic to todays issues, the Constitution loses some of it's relevance. THAT'S WHY THEY ALLOWED THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

Instead of INTERPRETING the constitution to THINK that they BELIEVE that they know what the founding fathers MEANT, why not actually utilize the mechanism put in place to AMEND the constitution as morals, mores and values shift. They did it with slavery. They did it with the woman's right to vote. They did it with the income tax. Hell....they did it with ALCOHOL.

Beginning with the 19th Amendment, there has not been a meaningful amendment proposed/ratified (with the exception of #21, which appealed #18). Apparently, beginning in about 1930, politicians figured out they could just "interpret" what they THINK the founding fathers meant, rather than continue using a mechanism that was working just fine for 160 years.

The last 8 amendments are merely window dressing, in my book. Anything of SUBSTANCE gets "interpreted".

edit: In fact, I would hazard a guess that it was, in fact the 18th/21st amendment debacle that caused Congress to STOP using the Amendment mechanism for anything meaningful...realizing that IF they wanted to reapeal an amendment, it required ANOTHER amendment, which would require a seismic shift in the country's moral values...they didn't want to have to go through THAT messy process anymore.

[OL FU]

I am sorry but that is simply pure hard headedness or misplaced logic (and I actually think you know that but are being a good lawyer and making the argument for the sake of making the argument). Other wise you can explain to me why one would think that the constitution intended for abortion to be a right when it wasn't mentioned and even privacy wasn't mentioned in the constitution. Honestly DF, there is a point when arguers lose their credibility when the obvious conclusion is dismissed.

And don't worry about hijacking the thread. It was not started for the purpose of discussion but simply to bash those with which the Cap'n disagrees.

We're back on the same sticking point OL. You think if it its not explicity mentioned in the Constitution that the Constitution does not apply. I think otherwise.

I believe its a valid and logical conclusion that the Constitution should protect the private reproductive rights of a woman from government intrusion. The argument on abortion to me is whether or not these reproductive rights extend to abortion. I do not necessarily think the Constitution provides a "Right to Abortion" and if RvW (or Casey) really is doing that then I would disagree with it.

That is not my point at all. The point isn't whether it is only explicitly mentioned in the constitution. The point is whether there is any reason to believe the entities that approved the consitution or later amendments intended for it to be a right. That is why intent is so important. I would imagine that you are involved in contracts everyday and the purpose of a contract, like the constitution, is to spell out the intent of said contract. Many times contracts fail to describe the intent and it must be interpretated. However, when it is interpreted, intent is the key. In this case, there is no reason at all to think that abortion was considered a constitutional right considering all the documents we have outside of the constitution that describe the intent of many of its provisions. This is the same logic that will be used to apply the right of gay marriage when there is no reason to think that such a right was ever contemplated by the parties that agreed to the constitution or subsequent amendments. The RvW issue is clearly one where the courts decided they knew best, contrary to historical precedent and the legislative process. I know you know but my position is politically favorable to abortion rights and gay marriage, but to even contemplate that the constitution and subsequent amendments considered these issues to be outside of the political spectrum and rights within the constitution is simply nonsense.

Now, if you take the position that the Supreme Court should have the ability to change the moral compass of the country based on changing scientific knowledge and opinions on morality, then that is a legitimate argument even if I would disagree with it. At least it is and argument of purpose versus one that twist the historical intent of the constitution. But to make the argument that constitutional rights included abortion because it is part of the reproductive process simply makes my head spin.

Sorry, but at certain times arguments stretch the point past believability.

[danefan]

Valid points. I just happen to disagree. And we've come full circle on this issue so I'll let it die.

To sum up - you guys think the only thing that Constitution applies to is what is explicitiy in the text of the Constitution. Anything else requires an Amendment.

I don't think our society could withstand such a rigid application of the Constitution and quite frankly, whether the founders thought it or not, it works better this way for our society.

[Cap'n Cat]

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.

[AZGrizFan]

Valid points. I just happen to disagree. And we've come full circle on this issue so I'll let it die.

To sum up - you guys think the only thing that Constitution applies to is what is explicitiy in the text of the Constitution. Anything else requires an Amendment.

I don't think our society could withstand such a rigid application of the Constitution and quite frankly, whether the founders thought it or not, it works better this way for our society.

Only if you're in agreement with the interpretation.

See: patriot act

[Cap'n Cat]

Cap'n Cat doesn't intend to bash, it just comes naturally when there is an easy target.

Still waiting for the list of Obama Consty violations, boyzz.

[AZGrizFan]

Cap'n Cat doesn't intend to bash, it just comes naturally when there is an easy target.

Still waiting for the list of Obama Consty violations, boyzz.

Are you not reading the thread?

[OL FU]

Valid points. I just happen to disagree. And we've come full circle on this issue so I'll let it die.

To sum up - you guys think the only thing that Constitution applies to is what is explicitiy in the text of the Constitution. Anything else requires an Amendment.

I don't think our society could withstand such a rigid application of the Constitution and quite frankly, whether the founders thought it or not, it works better this way for our society.

so I'll let it die

until the next time

[Cap'n Cat]

Cap'n Cat doesn't intend to bash, it just comes naturally when there is an easy target.

Still waiting for the list of Obama Consty violations, boyzz.

Are you not reading the thread?

Is that all you clowns got? Fvck, you'd think Mao was speaking at the Reflection Pool the way you Rush Regurgitators act!

What else is there, son?

[OL FU]

I'll make one more point because I do believe there is a distinction in my views that may have been missed.

When a democratically elected body passes a law that may skirt the constitution I think that it is acceptable for the Court to give the benefit to the law when interpreting the constitution. Even though I may think the law is unconstitutional, I agree with Breyer that the will of the people should be considered when interpreting the constitutionality of that law.

However, I don't think the Supreme Court should remove issues from the political process simply because of their views or a changing morality within the country. ( I realize DF does not think that is what is happening and I agree that we will have to disagree on that point). I think RvW is the best example of judicial legislation and I think that is trampling the constitution. It was never intended for the Supreme Court to legislate.

[AZGrizFan]

Are you not reading the thread?

Is that all you clowns got? Fvck, you'd think Mao was speaking at the Reflection Pool the way you Rush Regurgitators act!

What else is there, son?

This is as complete a list as I could find...

1. The Obama Administration committed fraud by issuing the following report as a true an attested production of the seven-member committee from the National Academy of Engineering on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: INCREASED SAFETY MEASURES FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON THE ... See MoreOUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF on MAY 27, 2010 – Issued by Ken Salazar;
2. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, circumvented the Constitution in particular, the Senate of the United States of America’s role to “Advise and Consent” on appointees referred to as “czars” or Presidential Advisors on at least 25 occasions;
3. The Obama Administration has seized, or caused to be seized private assets without the consent of Congress or Due Process through the Judicial Branch. i.e. – AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, and others;
4. The Obama Administration has committed bribery in garnering votes from Senators Landrieu of Louisiana, Nelson of Nebraska for the passage of H.R.3590 Title: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
5. The Obama Administration has sealed, sequestered, or caused to be sealed and/or sequestered vital documents of Constitutional importance which are subject to public disclosure in express violation of 44 U.S.C. § 2201;
6. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, accused the United States of America of wrong doing while on foreign soil;
7. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, usurped or seeks to usurp the sovereignty of the several states along the border of Mexico, and the Gulf Coast;
8. The Obama Administration has failed to secure the safety of United States citizens, their property, their livelihood, and their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by not enforcing Federal Laws on illegal entry into the United States of America through its many borders and points of debarkation;
9. The Obama Administration has committed several open and notorious acts of lying and making fraudulent statements to mislead the Congress and the citizens of the United States of America under color of authority;
10. The Obama Administration has, by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard for the safety of the United States of America, her citizens, and those legally residing in the country allowed enemies of the state to invade the country, causing death, mayhem, and gross property damage;
11. The Obama Administration has, by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard of the law, allowed foreign nationals to wrest the possession of Federal and private property from the citizens of the United States of America;
12. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought caused the property of citizens to be confiscated and then redistributed such property to others without due process, Congressional Enactment, or by order of a court;
13. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought sought to convey the sovereignty of the United States of America, in whole, or in part, to foreign entities and the United Nations;
14. The Obama Administration has by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard, caused the death, and/or injury of United States of America military personnel and allied forces of other nations;
15. The Obama Administration has by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard, caused or is attempting to cause the economy of the United States of America to decline precipitously;
16. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, committed the citizens of the United States of America to unmanageable, unrecoverable debt to foreign entities;
17. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States of America by causing tax payer funds to be expended on behalf known terrorist organizations such as Hamas and others, and has caused said sworn enemies to be transported to the United States of America endangering her citizenry;
18. The Obama Administration has feloniously interfered with local elections by offering goods in return for action by candidates in several states in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 595, and 18 U.S.C. § 600;
19. The Obama Administration has caused to be created, a list of enemies, and has openly and notoriously slandered several United States Citizens, legal institutions, citizen groups, and law enforcement agencies;
20. The Obama Administration has hired, and/or appointed tax evaders, felons, associates of enemies of the state, associates of known terrorists, and known supporters of communism to positions within the Federal government;
21. The Obama Administration has by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard, failed to enforce, through the Department of Justice, the laws regarding voter intimidation in the case of the Black Panthers in Philadelphia in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 594
22. The Obama Administration has interfered with, promoted, and/or acted with willful and malignant force in the affairs of a foreign nation, and its political process; i.e – Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan…et al
23. The Obama Adminstration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, provided information, omitted information, and/or mislead the American public in manner that invalidates any person’s security clearance, especially in the office now held;
24. The Obama Administration, specifically the President of the United States has demonstrably, and without question, manifests psychological deficiencies that preclude him or anyone displaying such deficiencies and mental disorders of holding any security clearance what-so-ever. He is therefore unfit for duty;
25. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, provided information, omitted information, and/or mislead the American public in the use of foreign passports, travel documents, and other Constitutionally important documents concerning foreign citizenship, foreign travel, and foreign allegiances;
26. Mr. Obama, has employed the use of falsified documents, obtained false documents, employed deceptive measures to secure such, and has committed fraud of the American public. i.e. - Multiple Social Security Numbers, one of a person who died before he was born in Connecticut, passports, visas, employment records, financial disclosure statements, and other public domain documents;
27. Mr. Obama is unfit for duty as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and is unfit to hold clearance for state secrets.
28. Mr. Obama is in violation of the 1st Amendment by authorizing the U.S.Coast Guard to suspend the right of the press to free speech without the benefit of an Act of Congress.

[Cap'n Cat]

Nice, Z. Care to reveal your source so we can laugh our asses off?

[AZGrizFan]

Nice, Z. Care to reveal your source so we can laugh our asses off?

That's ok.


I'm laughing FOR you.

[Pwns]

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.

Our system of interpreting the constitution makes even less sense.

Take the tenth amendment. The way it was written, clearly there were supposed to be some powers the states have that the feds can't take away from them, but it's essentially been re-written so that it no longer says "nor prohibited by it to the states", but now says "nor prohibited by it to the federal government". That's not interpretation, that's outright "war-is-peace black-is-white" horsesh^t.

And yes, the interpretation of the tenth amendment along with that of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses, as well as the fourteenth amendment pretty much gives the green light for the federal government to do whatever the hell they want. Even though I don't necessarily agree with the Ron Paul's on the constitution, people like him aren't nearly as much of a threat as the judges who practically rewrite it for themselves.

[CitadelGrad]

Nice, Z. Care to reveal your source so we can laugh our asses off?

I don't know what the source is, but the source really isn't relevant. What is relevant is the veracity of the list. Is it accurate or not? As far as I can tell, it is.

[Cap'n Cat]

Nice, Z. Care to reveal your source so we can laugh our asses off?

That's ok.


I'm laughing FOR you.

You're a Conk, but I love you , anyway.

[Cap'n Cat]

Nice, Z. Care to reveal your source so we can laugh our asses off?

I don't know what the source is, but the source really isn't relevant. What is relevant is the veracity of the list. Is it accurate or not? As far as I can tell, it is.

Yeah, to you, but you're a brain dead flag-wrapped fvcking moron from a half-assed, non-accredited, ahem, "university".




Regardless, seems like a shitload of conjecture and things that are W I D E open to multiple interpretations. That, however, does not, nor has it ever, bothered Conks. If it's jingly and hysterical and against a Democrat, it's la verdad.