If you were forced to choose...

[koshergrl]

People think that following the constitution does not allow for amendments and changes.

They're wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

It's sort of like "If you don't vote for abortion, women will die in childbirth and be denied access to birth control pills".

Only it's "If you follow the constitution, you are locked in to it as it is written today, forever and ever amen."

 

[DiamondDave]

Between following the constitution strictly as written ....


that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.

No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself

I'm not certain of that. Surely the founders were aware of precedent of the Coke decision and others, so one would expect them to clarify if they did not intend that role for the Supreme Court.

Afterall, when they speak of the "Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof", they clearly understand that someone needs to decide which laws are "in pursuance thereof". It would be difficult to support a union where each state got to decide which federal laws it felt were in pursuance.

Then show the power granted for judicial review in the constitution... What you cite is in reference to Atricle 6 which is not granting power to the Judicial.. as a matter of fact it defines limits and adherence to the constitution by law

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[8537]

No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself

I'm not certain of that. Surely the founders were aware of precedent of the Coke decision and others, so one would expect them to clarify if they did not intend that role for the Supreme Court.

Afterall, when they speak of the "Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof", they clearly understand that someone needs to decide which laws are "in pursuance thereof". It would be difficult to support a union where each state got to decide which federal laws it felt were in pursuance.

Then show the power granted for judicial review in the constitution... What you cite is in reference to Atricle 6 which is not granting power to the Judicial.. as a matter of fact it defines limits and adherence to the constitution by law

Sure, but you either missed the point or I wasn't clear. The Constitution grants someone a power to determine which laws are made in pursuance of the constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Who is tasked with determining which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? The Constitution states that state judges are bound by it, but not who determines it.

Within the lifetimes of those who signed the Constitution - indeed, while many of them held elected office in the government they created - the Supreme Court ruled that it was their role to decide what was in pursuance. ten years later that was reaffirmed. The people who wrote the document, still alive and active at the time, did not pass a law or propose an amendment to the contrary.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you were forced to choose...

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

Between following the constitution strictly as written ....


that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.

No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself

We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution.. we however do have a government that has gotten used to not operating within its strict limits

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution..


since when, today at 8:25 AM ???

not if there is interpretation by the Judiciary as distinct from the executive and legislative branches of "Government".

if the thread is basing its argument on the US Constitution.

 

[uscitizen]

This thread is about those who think that there is only this or that options.




sad...

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm not certain of that. Surely the founders were aware of precedent of the Coke decision and others, so one would expect them to clarify if they did not intend that role for the Supreme Court.

Afterall, when they speak of the "Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof", they clearly understand that someone needs to decide which laws are "in pursuance thereof". It would be difficult to support a union where each state got to decide which federal laws it felt were in pursuance.

Then show the power granted for judicial review in the constitution... What you cite is in reference to Atricle 6 which is not granting power to the Judicial.. as a matter of fact it defines limits and adherence to the constitution by law

Sure, but you either missed the point or I wasn't clear. The Constitution grants someone a power to determine which laws are made in pursuance of the constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Who is tasked with determining which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? The Constitution states that state judges are bound by it, but not who determines it.

Within the lifetimes of those who signed the Constitution - indeed, while many of them held elected office in the government they created - the Supreme Court ruled that it was their role to decide what was in pursuance. ten years later that was reaffirmed. The people who wrote the document, still alive and active at the time, did not pass a law or propose an amendment to the contrary.

The judges are bound.. not free to interpret and not free to give themselves the power to change so they can interpret... their powers, like all other powers granted to the other branches, are indeed strictly laid out

 

[8537]

Between following the constitution strictly as written ....


that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.

No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself

We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution.. we however do have a government that has gotten used to not operating within its strict limits

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution..


since when, today at 8:25 AM ???

not if there is interpretation by the Judiciary as distinct from the executive and legislative branches of "Government".

if the thread is basing its argument on the US Constitution.

But the precedent for judicial review in the age of our founders was well known - from both decisions in the colonies and court cases under the British system. Marbury vs. Madison simply codified it in our own - and the founders who were alive at the time did not rise up in unanimous objection.

 

[8537]

Then show the power granted for judicial review in the constitution... What you cite is in reference to Atricle 6 which is not granting power to the Judicial.. as a matter of fact it defines limits and adherence to the constitution by law

Sure, but you either missed the point or I wasn't clear. The Constitution grants someone a power to determine which laws are made in pursuance of the constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Who is tasked with determining which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? The Constitution states that state judges are bound by it, but not who determines it.

Within the lifetimes of those who signed the Constitution - indeed, while many of them held elected office in the government they created - the Supreme Court ruled that it was their role to decide what was in pursuance. ten years later that was reaffirmed. The people who wrote the document, still alive and active at the time, did not pass a law or propose an amendment to the contrary.

The judges are bound.. not free to interpret and not free to give themselves the power to change so they can interpret... their powers, like all other powers granted to the other branches, are indeed strictly laid out

So why do you keep avoiding my question then?

Which court gets final authority to decide which laws are made in pursuance of the Constitution?

 

[tjvh]

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

Your "poll" is a classic example of the false choice. The choice offered is ridiculous. Both options suck!

Four posts in before a Constitution revisionist enters the foray... It never takes long does it.

 

[elvis]

That is speculation..

Yes, it would have been HARDER for them to achieve what they wanted to achieve (rightly or wrongly)... but it is intended to be hard to change, keeping out whim and change without checks and balances

Is having Japan occupy California and in the process turning San Francisco into an American Nanking worth waiting for the process?

Again speculation...

Imagine you have to face that situation as president. Do you act or wait for congress?

Your navy has just been decimated.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...

If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed

Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing

 

[DiamondDave]

Is having Japan occupy California and in the process turning San Francisco into an American Nanking worth waiting for the process?

Again speculation...

Imagine you have to face that situation as president. Do you act or wait for congress?

Your navy has just been decimated.

If I believe in the country and it is not just about my power, I go thru the proper channels... He declared war, he had powers granted as such... he simply went beyond them.. and if you think the congress, populace, states, and the rest of government would have just sat on their hands and would want to delay the process is ridiculous... IMHO it would have been the fastest amendment ever ratified...


He acted as a king, not as a chief executive in a system based on checks and balances

 

[8537]

There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...

If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed

Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing

Again, which courts decide whether or not a law is in pursuance of the Constitution? Or is it simply in pursuance because Congress passed it with a majority vote (in other words, it's deemed constitutional because Congress said so).

And it wasn't just "Assumed". The concept existed before Marbury, it was confirmed again after Marbury and the founders - still alive and holding elected office at the time - did not rise up in unanimous opposition.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...

If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed

Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing

it was just something assumed and grabbed

not really but there is Judicial review - which is to say the US Constitution is not a strictly written document and is unable to be strictly followed.

(re)writing the Constitution strictly would solve the issue for its implementation but that was deliberately not the Framers intention - so the thread does not apply to the US Constitution.

 

[occupied]

Every time a conservative posts a "thought experiment" we are treated to an example of just how irrational their thought process seems to be. Hint: thought experiments do not have simple yes or no answers, they invite the participant to speculate on a wide range of scenarios.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...

If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed

Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing

Again, which courts decide whether or not a law is in pursuance of the Constitution? Or is it simply in pursuance because Congress passed it with a majority vote (in other words, it's deemed constitutional because Congress said so).

And it wasn't just "Assumed". The concept existed before Marbury, it was confirmed again after Marbury and the founders - still alive and holding elected office at the time - did not rise up in unanimous opposition.

That power is not a granted power... it was not left up to interpretation

It was indeed assumed, or it would have been added to the constitution via amendment

Again.. not like I disagree with judicial review.. I do not think it is great as we have it because the limitations are not strictly laid out, nor is the specific power... I am simply saying that power is not actually granted to the SC by the constitution.. .it is one that was grabbed otherwise against the constitution

 

[HUGGY]

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

Typical knee jerk reationary question DiamondDunce. False choice. Have you ever hear of AMMENDMENTS to the constitution? The constitution CAN be altered to suit the needs of Americans.

Therefore you are an idiot.

 

[8537]

There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...

If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed

Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing

Again, which courts decide whether or not a law is in pursuance of the Constitution? Or is it simply in pursuance because Congress passed it with a majority vote (in other words, it's deemed constitutional because Congress said so).

And it wasn't just "Assumed". The concept existed before Marbury, it was confirmed again after Marbury and the founders - still alive and holding elected office at the time - did not rise up in unanimous opposition.

That power is not a granted power... it was not left up to interpretation

It was indeed assumed, or it would have been added to the constitution via amendment

Again.. not like I disagree with judicial review.. I do not think it is great as we have it because the limitations are not strictly laid out, nor is the specific power... I am simply saying that power is not actually granted to the SC by the constitution.. .it is one that was grabbed otherwise against the constitution

Again, who do you believe the founders thought should decide which laws were in pursuance of the constitutions (constitutional) and which were not (unconstitutional)?

Or do you believe they had no opinion or thought on the matter?

And if you believe it was grabbed against the Constitution, you also must believe the constitution granted said power somewhere from whence it was grabbed. Where?

 

[8537]

And one more unanswered question: Are we talking about a strict interpretation of the Constitution as originally written?