If you were forced to choose...

[California Girl]

On what conceivable basis do you think that is a simple question?

It couldn't be more simple. Either you believe in our founding principles or you enjoy anarchy.

It's not anarchy they seek, it's total control. Quite the opposite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

It's an impossible choice because there's no way of determining, and enforcing, what you call a 'strict' interpretation of the constiution.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

It's an impossible choice because there's no way of determining, and enforcing, what you call a 'strict' interpretation of the constiution.

Specifically as it is written... only powers used are the ones specifically granted.. no extra reaches, no extra expenditures, no extra levels of government, no advanced interpretations... as written

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

If you don't have judicial review, how do you reverse the passage of a law, for example, that bans all ownership of semi-automatic weapons?

 

[DiamondDave]

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

All text that we have right now.... all amendments and language that we currently have

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

It's an impossible choice because there's no way of determining, and enforcing, what you call a 'strict' interpretation of the constiution.

Specifically as it is written... only powers used are the ones specifically granted.. no extra reaches, no extra expenditures, no extra levels of government, no advanced interpretations... as written

Is there a right of privacy in the Constitution?

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't bind the legislature and the President to a specific arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution,

so this whole hypothetical is absurd.

 

[Avatar4321]

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!

Exactly what sucks about following the Constitution?

BTW I choose following the Constitution because the Constitution has always been a document of practical enumerated powers. The States still have the flexibility to act as necessary and the Constitution also provides an amendment process in case we need to change something

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Operating under the Constitution STRICTLY as written would mean the President isn't Commander in Chief of the Air Force.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's an impossible choice because there's no way of determining, and enforcing, what you call a 'strict' interpretation of the constiution.

Specifically as it is written... only powers used are the ones specifically granted.. no extra reaches, no extra expenditures, no extra levels of government, no advanced interpretations... as written

Is there a right of privacy in the Constitution?

Specifically no... This was deemed by the SC in judicial review and only subsequently granted by interpretation... which is not a charged power of the SC...

Now.. this is not saying that I do not thing there should or should not be a right to privacy in the constitution... rather that it is not specifically in there

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Operating under the Constitution STRICTLY as written would mean the President isn't Commander in Chief of the Air Force.

Notice you took out your idiocy about the arms of bears...

You have no credibility

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

The states accepted the supremacy of the Constitution when they ratified it, or otherwise agreed to become states. And btw, the territories were all possessions of the United States, before they agreed to become states.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Operating under the Constitution STRICTLY as written would mean the President isn't Commander in Chief of the Air Force.

If by title?? There is no mention of air force.. though specific mention of armies and navy... should there have probably been an amendment to add by name the Marines and Air Force (even though they started as part of the Navy and Army)?? Probably... With strict interpretation of the law...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Specifically as it is written... only powers used are the ones specifically granted.. no extra reaches, no extra expenditures, no extra levels of government, no advanced interpretations... as written

Is there a right of privacy in the Constitution?

Specifically no... This was deemed by the SC in judicial review and only subsequently granted by interpretation... which is not a charged power of the SC...

Now.. this is not saying that I do not thing there should or should not be a right to privacy in the constitution... rather that it is not specifically in there

So in order to accept YOUR conditions for how to apply the Constitution, everyone would have to concede that they currently have no protected privacy rights, and at this time,

would have no legal recourse to contest an invasion of their privacy by anyone or any entity.

Are you beginning to see the absurdity of your position?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Operating under the Constitution STRICTLY as written would mean the President isn't Commander in Chief of the Air Force.

Notice you took out your idiocy about the arms of bears...

You have no credibility

Sorry but the Constitution says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

Under a 100% strict view, a Constitutional amendment would be required to make him Commander in Chief of any other branch of military service.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

The states accepted the supremacy of the Constitution when they ratified it, or otherwise agreed to become states. And btw, the territories were all possessions of the United States, before they agreed to become states.

As supreme law of the land... the states gave the power to the federal government... not the other way around... and it is why the states still do have powers over the fed written in the constitution and the states did not give up their sovereignty to become a possession

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

Exactly what sucks about following the Constitution?

BTW I choose following the Constitution because the Constitution has always been a document of practical enumerated powers. The States still have the flexibility to act as necessary and the Constitution also provides an amendment process in case we need to change something

So if someone thinks the upholding of so-called Obamacare was not constitutionally sound, how does this hypothetical 'choice' fix that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

The states accepted the supremacy of the Constitution when they ratified it, or otherwise agreed to become states. And btw, the territories were all possessions of the United States, before they agreed to become states.

As supreme law of the land... the states gave the power to the federal government... not the other way around... and it is why the states still do have powers over the fed written in the constitution and the states did not give up their sovereignty to become a possession

The powers states have are only those that don't conflict with federal powers and federal laws.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Operating under the Constitution STRICTLY as written would mean the President isn't Commander in Chief of the Air Force.

If by title?? There is no mention of air force.. though specific mention of armies and navy... should there have probably been an amendment to add by name the Marines and Air Force (even though they started as part of the Navy and Army)?? Probably... With strict interpretation of the law...

So you believe the President is NOT, Constitutionally, Commander in Chief of the Air Force?

The Marines, while not a sub-branch of the Navy itself, are part of the Department of the Navy - so we get into gray area - and strict contructionists fucking hate gray.