Constitutional Idiocies Produced by Fringe Ideologies

[Bern80]

I guess my question is how the law uphold people's rights, as you argue, without knowing whether it has a legal basis to uphold them in the first place?

The Law....meaning the Courts, settle legal issues. It is their role. Once something enters the courts...they get to decide whether an issue has legal merit.

Cases cannot get a hearing unless the judiciary agrees the case has merit. The courts routinely dismiss filings the courts think they have no duty to rule on. The courts also refuses to hear cases that do not address legal issues in legitimate ways.

The law is something we all agree to abide by, unless it is so unjust it offends sensibilities... and when there is no avenue to address that it can lead to civil revolt.

The courts constitutional duties are laid out. The courts (as well as government entities...as some have argued here), have the duty to interpret the constitution.

Disputes are settled by the courts.

Lovely, but it doesn't address your contention. You're contention was that you have rights that aren't spelled out in the constitution. Thus, you would have to acknowledge that you could bring to court a case that something you believe to be a right of yours that has no legal precedent could be argued and that despite not having any legal precedent or declaration that it is even a right at all the courts would have to uphold it, according to you.

That is the paradox of your position. You agreed the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law. That being the case they can not uphold any right that there isn't some legal precedent for. Yet according to you, one could essentially make up a right and the court is just suppossed to uphold it, which in reality would be legislating from the bench, which is NOT the role of the judiciary.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lovely, but it doesn't address your contention..

You are wrong on so many points I will have to address this post in parts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're contention was that you have rights that aren't spelled out in the constitution.

The Constitution itself says this, not me.

Thus, you would have to acknowledge that you could bring to court a case that something you believe to be a right of yours that has no legal precedent could be argued....

Yes. Most precedents concerning the most basic of civil rights/liberties fall into the scenario you have laid out. Most had no precedent. Later on the majority of other cases were decided on the precedent established.

Thus, you would have to acknowledge that you could bring to court a case that something you believe to be a right of yours that has no legal precedent could be argued and that despite not having any legal precedent or declaration that it is even a right at all the courts would have to uphold it, according to you.
.

The court is asked to consider a case, and if they themselves decided to hear it I would hope any case I brought before them would be heard and decided in my favor. I would not assume the court had to agree with me.

My momma didn't raise a fool.

D.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That is the paradox of your position. You agreed the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law.

No paradox here. The role of the judiciary is agreed upon by everyone who possesses reason. It is spelled out in the Constitution.

That being the case they can not uphold any right that there isn't some legal precedent for.

The Constitution explicitly states that because some rights are enumerated it is NOT to be construed that others do not exist.

Yet according to you, one could essentially make up a right and the court is just suppossed to uphold it, which in reality would be legislating from the bench, which is NOT the role of the judiciary.

Distinction with a difference: Actually the court do have a role in making law from the bench. I think all administrative law is made from the bench. The judiciary does not pass or make legislation.

The court does not uphold a made up right on the sense you are talking about. The court does rule a right exists if it is argued well and the understanding is that the particular right in question is covered by the common law, tradition and more.

Activist judicial moves are not the same thing as legislating from the bench. Activism on the part of judges happens all the time. Always has and always will...but any acts by the bench are covered by legal arguments.

You are confused on far too many points.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Still dodging, but fine.

Don't rights have to be held up on the basis of something? The role of the judicial system is to interpret our laws. Therefore it can't uphold anything that isn't already established as law. For it to do that a country's government must recognize in some form what things are rights and what are not?

How is it to do that, without some founding document to go on?

Not dodging. Go back to the begining of this thread and see what the issue is.

Great Britain has what some refer to as a constitution that is unwritten. It goes to the definition of 'Constitution' here.

The founding fathers argued over whether it was neccessary to enumerate any rights at all...because of tradituon and common law among other things.

So most agree that the 'form' you argue about does not have to be a written form only.

I guess my question is how the law uphold people's rights, as you argue, without knowing whether it has a legal basis to uphold them in the first place?

Since the law determines what legal basis there might be, you're going in a circle.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not dodging. Go back to the begining of this thread and see what the issue is.

Great Britain has what some refer to as a constitution that is unwritten. It goes to the definition of 'Constitution' here.

The founding fathers argued over whether it was neccessary to enumerate any rights at all...because of tradituon and common law among other things.

So most agree that the 'form' you argue about does not have to be a written form only.

I guess my question is how the law uphold people's rights, as you argue, without knowing whether it has a legal basis to uphold them in the first place?

Since the law determines what legal basis there might be, you're going in a circle.

true dat

but methinks that point gets lost round here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution certainly protects other rights not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes that clear. I would also certainly agree that there is a right to privacy, but I'd take issue with the idea that a "right" abortion somehow falls under that category.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution certainly protects other rights not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes that clear.

I would also certainly agree that there is a right to privacy, but I'd take issue with the idea that a "right" abortion somehow falls under that category.

Two justices agreed with you in Roe v Wade, but seven disgreed with you.

There is another thread I started about the Right of Privacy. If you posted your reasoning on this right over there...it would not get buried and I would reply today.

 

[editec]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

It is not a right. 7 Judges can not fabricate a right that does not exist cause they like a case. Go ahead find anywhere in the Constitution where it says you have a right to privacy and that you can murder for that right.

You are the lost one here. The ENTIRE argument is that it is NOT a right.

The Constitution says explicitly that there are rights not enumerated.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

One cannot understand the Constitution by a LITERAL reading of it.

It isn't written clearly enough to do that.

The second amendment is a perfect example of why I say that.

You could not have authored that in a way less useful to us understanding their intent than the way the floudering fathers authored it.

In their time, of course, it did make sense.

But we no longer have state militians in the way we had them in 1789.

Ergo, any literal interpretation of their intent is flawed by the fact that the world no longer works the way it once did.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution certainly protects other rights not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes that clear.

I would also certainly agree that there is a right to privacy, but I'd take issue with the idea that a "right" abortion somehow falls under that category.

Two justices agreed with you in Roe v Wade, but seven disgreed with you.

There is another thread I started about the Right of Privacy. If you posted your reasoning on this right over there...it would not get buried and I would reply today.

Well I'm in this thread, and what I said is certainly relevant to this thread so I see no reason why I need to jump around from thread to thread.

Yes, Roe v. Wade does not agree with my interpretation of the Constitution, but all that tells me is that the Supreme Court didn't actually follow the Constitution in that decision. Since the federal government is not given authority to regulate abortion one way or another the issue belongs with the individual states or to the people. It's all well and good to bring up the 9th Amendment, but let's not forget the 10th in the process.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

The Constitution says explicitly that there are rights not enumerated.

The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

One cannot understand the Constitution by a LITERAL reading of it.

It isn't written clearly enough to do that.

The second amendment is a perfect example of why I say that.

You could not have authored that in a way less useful to us understanding their intent than the way the floudering fathers authored it.

In their time, of course, it did make sense.

But we no longer have state militians in the way we had them in 1789.

Ergo, any literal interpretation of their intent is flawed by the fact that the world no longer works the way it once did.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution certainly protects other rights not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes that clear.

I would also certainly agree that there is a right to privacy, but I'd take issue with the idea that a "right" abortion somehow falls under that category.

Two justices agreed with you in Roe v Wade, but seven disgreed with you.

There is another thread I started about the Right of Privacy. If you posted your reasoning on this right over there...it would not get buried and I would reply today.

Well I'm in this thread, and what I said is certainly relevant to this thread so I see no reason why I need to jump around from thread to thread.

Constitutional idiocies?

Yes, Roe v. Wade does not agree with my interpretation of the Constitution,..

Part 1 of 2: good.

... but all that tells me is that the Supreme Court didn't actually follow the Constitution in that decision.

Part 2 of 2:Bad because you left out the words in red..."actually follow" "my interpretation of" "the Constitution

Since the federal government is not given authority to regulate abortion one way or another the issue belongs with the individual states or to the people. It's all well and good to bring up the 9th Amendment, but let's not forget the 10th in the process.

Abortion involves a commercial transaction, no? The states cannot justify enacting laws that abridge rights that would be considered fundamental and basic. The 10th amendment cannot be used to hide he tramplings of other amendments. There can be competing claims and issues, but at the end of the day it is all open to interpretation, which you admit to "my interpretation of the Constitution".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Two justices agreed with you in Roe v Wade, but seven disgreed with you.

There is another thread I started about the Right of Privacy. If you posted your reasoning on this right over there...it would not get buried and I would reply today.

Well I'm in this thread, and what I said is certainly relevant to this thread so I see no reason why I need to jump around from thread to thread.

Constitutional idiocies?

Part 1 of 2: good.

... but all that tells me is that the Supreme Court didn't actually follow the Constitution in that decision.

Part 2 of 2:Bad because you left out the words in red..."actually follow" "my interpretation of" "the Constitution

Since the federal government is not given authority to regulate abortion one way or another the issue belongs with the individual states or to the people. It's all well and good to bring up the 9th Amendment, but let's not forget the 10th in the process.

Abortion involves a commercial transaction, no? The states cannot justify enacting laws that abridge rights that would be considered fundamental and basic. The 10th amendment cannot be used to hide he tramplings of other amendments. There can be competing claims and issues, but at the end of the day it is all open to interpretation, which you admit to "my interpretation of the Constitution".

Of course it's my interpretation of the Constitution, I simply don't feel the need to repeat that every time I say something. Everything I say is merely my interpretation of whatever I'm discussing, and it's the same with everybody else on this message board. Facts are objective, but the interpretations of those facts are very much subjective.

Well you see the other amendments limit the federal government, not the state governments. That's why all the states have their own constitutions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course it's my interpretation of the Constitution, I simply don't feel the need to repeat that every time I say something. Everything I say is merely my interpretation of whatever I'm discussing, and it's the same with everybody else on this message board.

I apologize if I confused you...I just try to keep things in context.

Facts are objective, but the interpretations of those facts are very much subjective.

Yes and no. But that is a whole 'nother thread. LOL

Well you see the other amendments limit the federal government, not the state governments. That's why all the states have their own constitutions.

Of course all the other amendments address the limits of the federal government. The US Constitution, like the Articles of Confederation before them, address the role of the Federal government. The state constitutions exist before the USC. No surprise there.

What is surprising is how some people take that 'fact' and interpret it to mean more than it actually does.

What is not debatable is that before any precedents at all are established within case law....we have a blank slate. Saying all issues before the Court rest on
precedence is disinegenuous at best. In order for precedence to be established...new or unheard issues must be brought before the Court and then decided...which establishes the precedent.


One major issue I've always had with your arguments here is your absolute denial of meaning. Denial unlike ignorance is an active process.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course it's my interpretation of the Constitution, I simply don't feel the need to repeat that every time I say something. Everything I say is merely my interpretation of whatever I'm discussing, and it's the same with everybody else on this message board.

I apologize if I confused you...I just try to keep things in context.

Facts are objective, but the interpretations of those facts are very much subjective.

Yes and no. But that is a whole 'nother thread. LOL

Well you see the other amendments limit the federal government, not the state governments. That's why all the states have their own constitutions.

Of course all the other amendments address the limits of the federal government. The US Constitution, like the Articles of Confederation before them, address the role of the Federal government. The state constitutions exist before the USC. No surprise there.

What is surprising is how some people take that 'fact' and interpret it to mean more than it actually does.

What is not debatable is that before any precedents at all are established within case law....we have a blank slate. Saying all issues before the Court rest on
precedence is disinegenuous at best. In order for precedence to be established...new or unheard issues must be brought before the Court and then decided...which establishes the precedent.


One major issue I've always had with your arguments here is your absolute denial of meaning. Denial unlike ignorance is an active process.

I certainly deny that those who are put on the Supreme Court somehow receive the knowledge of what was truly meant by the Constitution, especially when their decisions certainly have no basis on anything that document states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I certainly deny that those who are put on the Supreme Court somehow receive the knowledge of what was truly meant by the Constitution, especially when their decisions certainly have no basis on anything that document states.

Unfortunately for you...that is what all precedents grow out of...interpretation.

You are fencing with ghosts and red herrings. No one ever said the justices 'received' knowledge... meant or otherwise.

What was 'truly meant' has always been open to interpretation since Madison and Hamilton were on all sides of the issue you put forth. Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, flip flopped on what his own words and their meanings meant.

Who are you or I to play the role of one who divines meaning?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I certainly deny that those who are put on the Supreme Court somehow receive the knowledge of what was truly meant by the Constitution, especially when their decisions certainly have no basis on anything that document states.

Unfortunately for you...that is what all precedents grow out of...interpretation.

You are fencing with ghosts and red herrings. No one ever said the justices 'received' knowledge... meant or otherwise.

What was 'truly meant' has always been open to interpretation since Madison and Hamilton were on all sides of the issue you put forth. Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, flip flopped on what his own words and their meanings meant.

Who are you or I to play the role of one who divines meaning?

Actually it was Hamilton who was the first great flip flopper. And it's clear that he did this because once he was in a position of power he wanted to centralize that power.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I certainly deny that those who are put on the Supreme Court somehow receive the knowledge of what was truly meant by the Constitution, especially when their decisions certainly have no basis on anything that document states.

Unfortunately for you...that is what all precedents grow out of...interpretation.

You are fencing with ghosts and red herrings. No one ever said the justices 'received' knowledge... meant or otherwise.

What was 'truly meant' has always been open to interpretation since Madison and Hamilton were on all sides of the issue you put forth. Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, flip flopped on what his own words and their meanings meant.

Who are you or I to play the role of one who divines meaning?

I'd be interested to see the Madisonian flip-flopping if you aren't too busy to post a link.

From a person who just skimmed this thread and spent some time reading some of your posts on here, this is what I get: You are trying to be too cute by half with your "analysis."

You would have the Constitution mean everything and nothing all at once.

The Bill of Rights is in there for a specific reason and to perform a specific function. I have the feeling you know that but have found it convenient for your own purposes to play fast and loose with the facts. Additionally, I'll stand here and wait while you produce citations to decisions by the Supremes decided under the 9th Amendment.

If you are trying to defend Griswold, come out and fight. Don't hide behind a BS thread about the whether the Constitution only protects specific rights or all rights. If you are a lawyer, you damned well know the difference in the "standard of review" that "rights" receive when they are specific rights protected under the Bill of Rights and "other rights" that are more speculative in nature. Playing cat's paw with layman is just stupid.

If you're not a lawyer (taking nothing for granted), then I'll let you off the hook for not knowing that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I certainly deny that those who are put on the Supreme Court somehow receive the knowledge of what was truly meant by the Constitution, especially when their decisions certainly have no basis on anything that document states.

Unfortunately for you...that is what all precedents grow out of...interpretation.

You are fencing with ghosts and red herrings. No one ever said the justices 'received' knowledge... meant or otherwise.

What was 'truly meant' has always been open to interpretation since Madison and Hamilton were on all sides of the issue you put forth. Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, flip flopped on what his own words and their meanings meant.

Who are you or I to play the role of one who divines meaning?

Actually it was Hamilton who was the first great flip flopper. And it's clear that he did this because once he was in a position of power he wanted to centralize that power.

Funny...I listed the instances where both Madison and Hamilton were at issue with each other and themsleves. I will repost the instances on another post.


what does the Esq want? LOL

next post....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'd be interested to see the Madisonian flip-flopping if you aren't too busy to post a link.

I can't right now for reasons I won't get into, but rest assured I posted them in an earlier thread...where it got buried by the usual innanities that rule here.

I will answer you in parts...

I do remember that there were two very early issues that concerned the new nation, that both Madison and Hamilton were on opposite sides of.

If memory serves me...it concerned the exact meaning of the Constitution and whether the words had a meaning of their own, or whether the intenet of the words had a meaning that differed...and whether one case was more valid than the other for issues of Constitutional interpretation.

Later (a year or two?), another issue of interpretation concerned the new nation and both Madison and Hamilton were again on opposite sides of an issue. Only this time, both took an opposite view of their previous positions.

I will try to remember to search out the links and post them at a later time. Remind me if I forget.