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.
Following that logic why should we follow the "220 years of progress and history," as your article puts it? Lysander Spooner put forth a similar argument, saying that the Constitution has no force over those who had nothing to do with its inception, but his stance was consistent as he was an anarchist. This article simply puts forth this argument to attack the founders, while not applying the same standard to the rest of American history. If we shouldn't follow the Constitution because we weren't alive when it was written, what laws from the FDR administration can we ignore? And how much beloved Supreme Court precedent is now out the window since it can't obviously have any force on those of us who had nothing to do with it? And should we simply craft a new form of government all together, since we had no say in the creation of our current republic?
As for the Constitution being a document we "follow today more closely than the bible," that's obviously a ridiculous argument. Our government, which is mandated to follow the Constitution, barely follows the Constitution at all, whereas following the bible is a personal choice of each individual.
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true
And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.
Following that logic why should we follow the "220 years of progress and history," as your article puts it? Lysander Spooner put forth a similar argument, saying that the Constitution has no force over those who had nothing to do with its inception, but his stance was consistent as he was an anarchist. This article simply puts forth this argument to attack the founders, while not applying the same standard to the rest of American history. If we shouldn't follow the Constitution because we weren't alive when it was written, what laws from the FDR administration can we ignore? And how much beloved Supreme Court precedent is now out the window since it can't obviously have any force on those of us who had nothing to do with it? And should we simply craft a new form of government all together, since we had no say in the creation of our current republic?
As for the Constitution being a document we "follow today more closely than the bible," that's obviously a ridiculous argument. Our government, which is mandated to follow the Constitution, barely follows the Constitution at all, whereas following the bible is a personal choice of each individual.
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true
And even these 9 Black-Robed Humans get it wrong.
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true
And even these 9 Black-Robed Humans get it wrong.
Do you have a better way of doing it?
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true
And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.
What mechanism do you recommend for determining the constitutionality of laws? Be specific.
And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.
What mechanism do you recommend for determining the constitutionality of laws? Be specific.
It is my opinion that reading the Constitution is the most effective means of determining whether something the government does is constitutional.
Yeah. We really should have had Native Americans, women, single moms, Marxists, and maybe a gay black WAC with a bad leg participating in the writing of the Constitution.
If we hadn't left it to a few old white guys to write, instead of the Constitutional document that was so brilliantly conceived and so magnificent in its simplicty, we might have a 2200 page tomb of the clarity and coherence similar to the healthcare legislation that was just passed.
Yep. And it wasn't ratified until 1787. Quite awhile after the War was won in 1781. It was a long and arduous process.
Doesn't that fact it had to be rewritten prove the Tea Party mentality doesn't work too well?
Regarding Village Idiots: It Takes One To Know One.
I thought we did not want old white men involved in our lives?
What mechanism do you recommend for determining the constitutionality of laws? Be specific.
It is my opinion that reading the Constitution is the most effective means of determining whether something the government does is constitutional.
That wasn't my question. Would you take the authority to interpret the Constitution away from the Supreme Court?
That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Yep. And it wasn't ratified until 1787. Quite awhile after the War was won in 1781. It was a long and arduous process.
Doesn't that fact it had to be rewritten prove the Tea Party mentality doesn't work too well?
The Tea Party (the original one) mentality gave us the Declaration of Independence. It was appreciation for and recognition of God given unalienable rights that gave us the Constitution of the USA.
And they did it slow and they did it carefully, probably with hundreds of rewrites over six long years of discussion and consideration. They did it by debating it fully and considering every consequence resulting from the words they wrote that they could think of and that was done in the light of day with full disclosure of what everybody thought about it. And when Thomas Jefferson did the final edit and attached the preamble, six tears after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, every single signatory knew every syllable, jot, and tittle, and what every clause meant.
And then the people in the various states were given ample time to see, understand, and debate the content so that it was more than a year later that the document was finally ratified.
No other document has ever been so carefully crafted over so long a period and the strength of it withstood the test of so much time as has the Constitution of the United States of America.
If we took even half as much care and allowed half as much light on all far reaching important legislation passed, we would have had far less grief.
Yep. And it wasn't ratified until 1787. Quite awhile after the War was won in 1781. It was a long and arduous process.
Doesn't that fact it had to be rewritten prove the Tea Party mentality doesn't work too well?
The Tea Party (the original one) mentality gave us the Declaration of Independence. It was appreciation for and recognition of God given unalienable rights that gave us the Constitution of the USA.
And they did it slow and they did it carefully, probably with hundreds of rewrites over six long years of discussion and consideration. They did it by debating it fully and considering every consequence resulting from the words they wrote that they could think of and that was done in the light of day with full disclosure of what everybody thought about it. And when Thomas Jefferson did the final edit and attached the preamble, six tears after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, every single signatory knew every syllable, jot, and tittle, and what every clause meant.
And then the people in the various states were given ample time to see, understand, and debate the content so that it was more than a year later that the document was finally ratified.
No other document has ever been so carefully crafted over so long a period and the strength of it withstood the test of so much time as has the Constitution of the United States of America.
If we took even half as much care and allowed half as much light on all far reaching important legislation passed, we would have had far less grief.
No, I wouldn't take away the Supreme Court's right to interpret the Constitution. I would simply reestablish the right of the other branches to determine the Constitution, and that of the states as well.
Perhaps a fully informed adult signing of a binding covenant should be required of everyone desiring to take part in decision making by the body politic.
Doesn't that fact it had to be rewritten prove the Tea Party mentality doesn't work too well?
The Tea Party (the original one) mentality gave us the Declaration of Independence. It was appreciation for and recognition of God given unalienable rights that gave us the Constitution of the USA.
And they did it slow and they did it carefully, probably with hundreds of rewrites over six long years of discussion and consideration. They did it by debating it fully and considering every consequence resulting from the words they wrote that they could think of and that was done in the light of day with full disclosure of what everybody thought about it. And when Thomas Jefferson did the final edit and attached the preamble, six tears after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, every single signatory knew every syllable, jot, and tittle, and what every clause meant.
And then the people in the various states were given ample time to see, understand, and debate the content so that it was more than a year later that the document was finally ratified.
No other document has ever been so carefully crafted over so long a period and the strength of it withstood the test of so much time as has the Constitution of the United States of America.
If we took even half as much care and allowed half as much light on all far reaching important legislation passed, we would have had far less grief.
I am not saying they were wrong, and that they didn't do good. I refering to the fact the Articles of the Confederation didn't last very long.
No, I wouldn't take away the Supreme Court's right to interpret the Constitution. I would simply reestablish the right of the other branches to determine the Constitution, and that of the states as well.
The other branches pass judgment on the constitutionality of proposed laws all the time. What on earth are you talking about?
No, I wouldn't take away the Supreme Court's right to interpret the Constitution. I would simply reestablish the right of the other branches to determine the Constitution, and that of the states as well.
The other branches pass judgment on the constitutionality of proposed laws all the time. What on earth are you talking about?
Doesn't that fact it had to be rewritten prove the Tea Party mentality doesn't work too well?
The Tea Party (the original one) mentality gave us the Declaration of Independence. It was appreciation for and recognition of God given unalienable rights that gave us the Constitution of the USA.
And they did it slow and they did it carefully, probably with hundreds of rewrites over six long years of discussion and consideration. They did it by debating it fully and considering every consequence resulting from the words they wrote that they could think of and that was done in the light of day with full disclosure of what everybody thought about it. And when Thomas Jefferson did the final edit and attached the preamble, six tears after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, every single signatory knew every syllable, jot, and tittle, and what every clause meant.
And then the people in the various states were given ample time to see, understand, and debate the content so that it was more than a year later that the document was finally ratified.
No other document has ever been so carefully crafted over so long a period and the strength of it withstood the test of so much time as has the Constitution of the United States of America.
If we took even half as much care and allowed half as much light on all far reaching important legislation passed, we would have had far less grief.
I am not saying they were wrong, and that they didn't do good. I refering to the fact the Articles of the Confederation didn't last very long.
