If you were forced to choose...

Which would you choose

  • Eliminating the constitution and government running by what it felt necessary or proper to do

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    29
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
So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

The president ultimately is but at the same time the congress can override the president.

This is NOT a dictatorship - this is a democracy...

Progressives believe this is a dictatorship - and want it to be such...

the president???? as the arbiter of constitutionality???

the congress????? as the arbiter of constitutionality???

that is the funniest thing i've ever heard.
 
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

why would you limit it to those two options. the constitution was never intended to be a "literal" document.

what does "due process" mean absent caselaw?
what does "equal protection" mean absent caselaw?

your poll, though i see what you're getting at, is a false choice.

You can support that, of course.
 
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?

It is not an absurd position... we do not have a right to absolute privacy.. you are not a country of 1

We don't have the right to absolute anything.

If you think the average American is going to agree that he has no right of privacy protected by the Constitution, IF the Constitution is 'properly' interpreted,

you're nuts.
 
So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

It has not been dodged.. you just do not like the answer that it is not a power granted...
So if it was not granted, where does the power lie? And btw, why didn't the founders object? If you can just answer that question finally perhaps we can move on....

Judicial review, if that's what you're talking about, was already an established practice that predated the Constitution.

The Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum.
 
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?


Let me bump this question since I don't see any attempt at an answer to it.

If you don't have judicial review, then the legislature becomes the arbiter of constitutionality, and in that case the idea of 'strict' interpretation gets moved even farther out of reach.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top