Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Papa Jack wrote in part:
For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.
Ah, not so fast there Papa Jack. The ONLY people pining away for the '50's are white men. For women and people of color, the '50's were a nightmare; men who had fought in WW II came home to this:
I'm not anxious to return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life.
You're absolutely correct, Madeline. The era I talked about was anything but perfect, but it was far, far better than where we now find ourselves. With the governmental polices, tax polices, and the direction we funneled our tax revenues during those decades, we able to produce the greatest middle class the world has ever known. And out of that middle class growth, we were later able to take on social issues since as race.
Compare that era to the current times where we have a shrinking middle class, and are totally incapable of doing anything on our social issues of the day. For example, everyone........from the far left to the far right...........agrees we need a comprehensive immigration policy. However, both parties are completely inept of even staring debate on the issue.
Papa Jack wrote in part:
For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.
Ah, not so fast there Papa Jack. The ONLY people pining away for the '50's are white men. For women and people of color, the '50's were a nightmare; men who had fought in WW II came home to this:
I'm not anxious to return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life.
You're absolutely correct, Madeline. The era I talked about was anything but perfect, but it was far, far better than where we now find ourselves. With the governmental polices, tax polices, and the direction we funneled our tax revenues during those decades, we able to produce the greatest middle class the world has ever known. And out of that middle class growth, we were later able to take on social issues since as race.
Compare that era to the current times where we have a shrinking middle class, and are totally incapable of doing anything on our social issues of the day. For example, everyone........from the far left to the far right...........agrees we need a comprehensive immigration policy. However, both parties are completely inept of even staring debate on the issue.
Most importantly, I don't see how anyone would think that if we were ever able to change from our current national economic policy, and return to doing it similar to how it was done in the 50's and 60's, why that would mean we'd "return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life."
Ah, not so fast there Papa Jack. The ONLY people pining away for the '50's are white men. For women and people of color, the '50's were a nightmare; men who had fought in WW II came home to this:
I'm not anxious to return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life.
You're absolutely correct, Madeline. The era I talked about was anything but perfect, but it was far, far better than where we now find ourselves. With the governmental polices, tax polices, and the direction we funneled our tax revenues during those decades, we able to produce the greatest middle class the world has ever known. And out of that middle class growth, we were later able to take on social issues since as race.
Compare that era to the current times where we have a shrinking middle class, and are totally incapable of doing anything on our social issues of the day. For example, everyone........from the far left to the far right...........agrees we need a comprehensive immigration policy. However, both parties are completely inept of even staring debate on the issue.
Most importantly, I don't see how anyone would think that if we were ever able to change from our current national economic policy, and return to doing it similar to how it was done in the 50's and 60's, why that would mean we'd "return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life."
Well there I agree with you. MORE THAN HALF of all American workers are now employed by government -- that's insane. And what regulation we receive for all this government work is abysmal.
We need to slash the Code of Federal Regulations by 3/4ths and shutter as many Federal Agencies, and then concentrate on building small businesses and enforcing the vital regulations we need without annoying everyone with stupid laws such as babies in car seats cannot ride in front.
Studying constitutional laws goes far beyond just the Constitution itself. SCOTUS operates on precedent, and that precedent is valuable if you don't want a Court that just makes things up as it goes, and does that "judicial activism" stuff (which, under Roberts, is what this current Court seems to be doing).
How about this: Article 1, Section 9
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
How do you define the parameters of "public Safety", what constitutes "Rebellion or Invasion"; meaning, under what circumstances would it be constitutional for Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus?
Couldn't that be construed to allow infinite detention, since 9/11 could be construed to be an invasion to public safety? I bet there are some Cheney hawks who'd like that interpretation, and there are others who would think it's too loose.
If you go back through precedent, the Court has determined that Habeas Corpus can't be suspended so long as the civilian courts are functional, and that the states can't suspend the writ because it's obliquely aimed at Congressional limits and is therefore implied that states don't have the power, even though that isn't explicitly stated in the clause.
Or how about Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
"...protect each of them against Invasion...". I see a lot of people referring to illegal immigration as an invasion. Does this mean Obama can send the military to the border and start shooting Mexicans?
Just because the document is written in English, doesn't mean it's simple. The Founding Fathers weren't dictatorial enough to write the Constitution in stone-hard language that could be interpreted one way, and one way only. It takes a "twisting of language" to interpret categorically strict limits on government, as it does to interpret loose limits on government.
)
This thread is case in point why we need the scholars.
In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?
The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.
The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.
And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.
We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, " We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves." Are you suggesting we don't need a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of our laws? If that wasn't your meaning then disregard my following statement, but, if it was your intent, then one must note that the Constitution provides for our Highest Court to do just that.
Something else you said, and something I'd like to talk about, was "The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions." Now, you were not talking about a "stupid electorate" in the contest of what I'm going to bring up, but, as we all know, "Stupid Is As Stupid Does!"
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to our voting habits, all of us............. ALL OF US ..............., are indeed, very stupid!
By that, I mean, we seem incapable of doing the most basic thing in human development and learn from our past mistakes. Quite the contrary, we seem to insist on doubling down on those very mistakes.
For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.
But, then we had a series of politicians................ FROM BOTH PARTIES ............come along and tell us we could do better. We could do better if we changed the direction of where our tax dollars went away from the middle class and and toward the higher income brackets. We were told the government services we demanded need not be paid for. And we were told we would be better off if the tax codes were rewritten to more favor the better off among us.
I don't condemn us for failing for that snake oil pitch. After all, it really did sound good. What leads me to conclude we are truly a stupid nation is we can't seem to learn that it is not only a pipe dream, but also that it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. But, instead of changing toward something that might work, and has worked in the past, we stupidly insist on traveling that same road that, for the past 30 years, has taken us further and further from our "best of times."
Actually the constitution has numerous parts that were put in under the assumption that the people COULD be stupid. You also have to remember that voter franchise was not universal at the time of the founding of our current government, most of them at the time were proponents of voter restrictions based on land, education, profession etc.
Such institutions as the senate, with its 6 year turnover cycle, the amendment process, and ths lifetime appointments to the supreme court were designed to prevent radical change from happening. Add in the electoral college and you create a buffer between "stupid" acts.
I understand people wanting and thinking that "ordinary" people can do everything just as well as experts, but that sadly isn't the case. A normal person can fight a fire but I would rather have a trained firefighter do it. Same with engineering. Any person could try to build a bridge, but I wouldnt want to cross one desgined by a baker.
There's a difference between knowing that people can ACT stupidly, and assuming that they can't understand English when they read it. And reading a document written in plain English ain't firefighting OR engineering. It doesn't require expert training, a college degree, or even licensing and certification to accomplish.
But like every human endovor some people will chose to study it more then the aVERage bear. SOMEONE has to interpet it when disputes arise, and since lawyers have the best training when it comes to interpreting law it falls on them.
What other system would you propose? If you really want to get around the courts there is a process for it, the amendment process. You could make having the president quack like a duck for 1 hour a year made constitutional that way, and the courts, legislature and the executive could do squat about it.
A system where "ordinary" people would determine consitutional diasagreements reminds me of when the bolsheviks rounded up a peasant, a worker and a solider to be part of the negotiating team with the germans in 1917 just to satisfy thier ideology.
This thread is case in point why we need the scholars.
Ah, not so fast there Papa Jack. The ONLY people pining away for the '50's are white men. For women and people of color, the '50's were a nightmare; men who had fought in WW II came home to this:
I'm not anxious to return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life.
You're absolutely correct, Madeline. The era I talked about was anything but perfect, but it was far, far better than where we now find ourselves. With the governmental polices, tax polices, and the direction we funneled our tax revenues during those decades, we able to produce the greatest middle class the world has ever known. And out of that middle class growth, we were later able to take on social issues since as race.
Compare that era to the current times where we have a shrinking middle class, and are totally incapable of doing anything on our social issues of the day. For example, everyone........from the far left to the far right...........agrees we need a comprehensive immigration policy. However, both parties are completely inept of even staring debate on the issue.
Most importantly, I don't see how anyone would think that if we were ever able to change from our current national economic policy, and return to doing it similar to how it was done in the 50's and 60's, why that would mean we'd "return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life."
Well there I agree with you. MORE THAN HALF of all American workers are now employed by government -- that's insane. And what regulation we receive for all this government work is abysmal.
We need to slash the Code of Federal Regulations by 3/4ths and shutter as many Federal Agencies, and then concentrate on building small businesses and enforcing the vital regulations we need without annoying everyone with stupid laws such as babies in car seats cannot ride in front.
This thread is case in point why we need the scholars.
The scholars have had their time.. we need more rednecks.
In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?
The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.
The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.
And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.
We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, " We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves." Are you suggesting we don't need a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of our laws? If that wasn't your meaning then disregard my following statement, but, if it was your intent, then one must note that the Constitution provides for our Highest Court to do just that.
I tell you what, Punkin. You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws", and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be. Until that point, I will pigheadedly persist in believing that this isn't a dictatorship with a handful of oligarchs ruling us all.
I'll be waiting on that PRECISE, WORD FOR WORD quote from the Constitution where it "provides for our Highest Court to do just that", but I won't hold my breath.
Something else you said, and something I'd like to talk about, was "The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions." Now, you were not talking about a "stupid electorate" in the contest of what I'm going to bring up, but, as we all know, "Stupid Is As Stupid Does!"
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to our voting habits, all of us............. ALL OF US ..............., are indeed, very stupid!
By that, I mean, we seem incapable of doing the most basic thing in human development and learn from our past mistakes. Quite the contrary, we seem to insist on doubling down on those very mistakes.
For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.
But, then we had a series of politicians................ FROM BOTH PARTIES ............come along and tell us we could do better. We could do better if we changed the direction of where our tax dollars went away from the middle class and and toward the higher income brackets. We were told the government services we demanded need not be paid for. And we were told we would be better off if the tax codes were rewritten to more favor the better off among us.
I don't condemn us for failing for that snake oil pitch. After all, it really did sound good. What leads me to conclude we are truly a stupid nation is we can't seem to learn that it is not only a pipe dream, but also that it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. But, instead of changing toward something that might work, and has worked in the past, we stupidly insist on traveling that same road that, for the past 30 years, has taken us further and further from our "best of times."
People ARE sometimes stupid. Politicians are people. So explain to me how the concentrated stupidity of a handful of people is better than the dispersed stupidity of the electorate. What possible evidence do you have that we're better off cutting the people out of the equation?
Case law can be wrong. Most of our current problems with the courts is because they are trying to fix previous mistakes. Plessy V Ferguson was the law for 60 years, and we have spent the last 60 trying to undo the damage.
True that, but PvF was wrong and in the face of the clear text.
Most of what folks have an issue with is when the courts decide their point of view is more important than the text.
And it is hard to follow the law when the law changes with the judiciaries mood, and when the judiciary just decides to follow their own feelings rather than the text in front of them.
No one will do a better job. They just need to do a better job.
