Living Document or Not?

[Yurt]

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

good points, and i agree, people will continue disagreeing, at least in this country that is allowed

thank you. but what would you say to people who think there is only one answer.... one way to respond constitutionally? don't the pretend constitutionalists offend your sensibilities given you've studied... i've studied... i'd hate to think either of us would pretend to know all... though of course we have opinions on different subjects. but some of these people, who've never studied .... ever... get offended when one suggests that perhaps they should study before they offer such definitive views.

i don't think one needs to be a scholar or studied up as much as a lawyer to understand the constitution. while studying and being a scholar allows you to more fully understand the debates and cases etc....IMO, our political and life leanings influence how we look at laws and the constitution. two equally reknowned scholars could wholly disagree, so i do not think there is "one" way to look at it, however, our judicial system recognizes scotus precedent as essentially being the "one" right way of interpreting the constitution.

as to offense, i don't know, was it said condescending, like your opinion doesn't count as much as mine because i studied more....sometimes wisdom comes from the mouth of babes

 

[Greenbeard]

Your explanation of Article 1, Section 8 is really amazing. How would you keep illegals out?

Exactly the way we do. Have you been reading my posts? As I said above, I like to think the Constitution can still be used to govern a society that has undergone substantial economic and social changes since 1787 (that includes dealing with the effects on immigration of a large expansion of the economic differential between the U.S. and its southern neighbor). My point is that if you assumed the document is dead--or however you'd put it--and the exact letter is all that matters, the federal government can't keep them out. That requires interpretation and precedent, which you seem to be saying is some kind of perversion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

By all means procede with some sort of non opinionated proof to our claim.

You made the claim, son, and have not supported it. I have to prove nothing at this point. The fact is that SCOTUS has ruled, and, you, kiddo, get to support it. Lucky you!

Oh, and go ahead and don't comply with a law you don't like. Tell us how that turns out.

I want to read your lie that we would be spaking Russian. You made that claim junior I suggest you produce or shut the fuck up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Liability, based on his writings here, has no real understanding of American history, the constitution, or our legal system. All of his questions have been answered. He, no more than bigreb, gets to tell us how the Constitution must be interpreted. He can have his opinion, sure, but the decision making is over.

He will just have to get along with that.

And Dude just nattered on saying absolutely nothing of sense or worth. But that's what makes America great, that even nasty folks like Liability or bigrebnc1775 and "I am lost in the woods, help find me" folks like Dude can have their say. And what makes it great also is that those of us who do understand what America is about can chuckle and pat Dude and the others on their collective pointy head on the way past them.

I want to hear about your version of what America is susposed to be about . Now this is your chance to give your version so I will not call you on any lies.

 

[Liability]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

STRICTLY speaking, it is incorrect to say that the US is a common law nation. It is PARTLY a common law nation.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claiming that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

Damn that's just wrong.

We most absolutely do NOT live in a "common law" nation. That's simply wrong.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claimin that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.

 

[Yurt]

By all means procede with some sort of non opinionated proof to our claim.

You made the claim, son, and have not supported it. I have to prove nothing at this point. The fact is that SCOTUS has ruled, and, you, kiddo, get to support it. Lucky you!

Oh, and go ahead and don't comply with a law you don't like. Tell us how that turns out.

I want to read your lie that we would be spaking Russian. You made that claim junior I suggest you produce or shut the fuck up.

don't hold your breath waiting for jakey to back up his claims...i have yet to see him do so once

 

[Liability]

Liability, based on his writings here, has no real understanding of American history, the constitution, or our legal system. All of his questions have been answered. He, no more than bigreb, gets to tell us how the Constitution must be interpreted. He can have his opinion, sure, but the decision making is over.

He will just have to get along with that.

And Dude just nattered on saying absolutely nothing of sense or worth. But that's what makes America great, that even nasty folks like Liability or bigrebnc1775 and "I am lost in the woods, help find me" folks like Dude can have their say. And what makes it great also is that those of us who do understand what America is about can chuckle and pat Dude and the others on their collective pointy head on the way past them.

Jokey, you petty little lying sack of shit. I find your fixation on me mildly disturbing.

As anyone who reads your absurd dishonesty already knows, you are merely a liar. You pretend to be a Republican, fool nobody in the process, and offer idiotic "views" as though your mask was credible. It isn't. It is quite likely that I have forgotten more history than a simpleton little liar like you has ever learned or ever will learn.

And of course, in your petulant little candyass way, you have unintentionally revealed a little truth about you, bitch.

The correct method for "interpreting" the Constitution is actually quite a bit simpler than you pretend. You are going to have to learn to embrace the truth someday.

Frauds like you often pretend that a matter entails some confusion as a transparent pretense to engage in "interpretation."
But it is often the case that no "interpretation" is required and when it is, your fanciful spin on that word does a disservice to the obvious truthful intent of the Constitution.

Frauds like you get regularly exposed primarily because you are a horrible liar. Too bad that doesn't stop you.

But you do make us laugh. That much of your idiotic petty little diatribe was accurate.

 

[Yurt]

Liability, based on his writings here, has no real understanding of American history, the constitution, or our legal system. All of his questions have been answered. He, no more than bigreb, gets to tell us how the Constitution must be interpreted. He can have his opinion, sure, but the decision making is over.

He will just have to get along with that.

And Dude just nattered on saying absolutely nothing of sense or worth. But that's what makes America great, that even nasty folks like Liability or bigrebnc1775 and "I am lost in the woods, help find me" folks like Dude can have their say. And what makes it great also is that those of us who do understand what America is about can chuckle and pat Dude and the others on their collective pointy head on the way past them.

jake is too stupid to see the irony of his post

 

[jillian]

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

Damn that's just wrong.

We most absolutely do NOT live in a "common law" nation. That's simply wrong.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claimin that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

 

[jillian]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

STRICTLY speaking, it is incorrect to say that the US is a common law nation. It is PARTLY a common law nation.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claiming that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

britain had codified laws too.

we are a common law country. the only code state is louisiana.

you are misstating the law in the context of a constitutional discussion.

 

[ConHog]

Damn that's just wrong.

We most absolutely do NOT live in a "common law" nation. That's simply wrong.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claimin that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

I enjoy laughing at conservatives and liberals alike who scream bloody murder everytime a court gives a ruling they disagree with , claiming that the court is not doing their job. Never understanding, apparently, that our COTUS exactly set up a system that means the courts DO interpret the COTUS and therefor precedent DOES matter, to a point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far reactionaries here are engaged in their normal nonsense of making an unsubstantiated argument "the 10th Amendment was never repealed", and then defy anyone to provide counter evidence. The claim about the 10th is stupid, those who support that are stupid, and then those yokes attack folks who point out their basic error.

The type of nonsense in which Liability and Yurt and bigreb and Dude engage clearly reveals why the political beliefs will continue to remain unrealized, and why, after the next two elections, the GOP will reform itself and discard those who have used it or hidden behind it to attack real America.

 

[Yurt]

The far reactionaries here are engaged in their normal nonsense of making an unsubstantiated argument "the 10th Amendment was never repealed", and then defy anyone to provide counter evidence. The claim about the 10th is stupid, those who support that are stupid, and then those yokes attack folks who point out their basic error.

The type of nonsense in which Liability and Yurt and bigreb and Dude engage clearly reveals why the political beliefs will continue to remain unrealized, and why, after the next two elections, the GOP will reform itself and discard those who have used it or hidden behind it to attack real America.

another example of jake's "fine" arguments....its stupid because i say so



perhaps you could actually explain how and why it is stupid instead of your elementary school conclusoins that its stupid because i say its stupid

 

[Liability]

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

I enjoy laughing at conservatives and liberals alike who scream bloody murder everytime a court gives a ruling they disagree with , claiming that the court is not doing their job. Never understanding, apparently, that our COTUS exactly set up a system that means the courts DO interpret the COTUS and therefor precedent DOES matter, to a point.

Precedent does matter. And it should to exactly the extent that we have, IN PART, a common law legal system.

But regardless of precedent and for all the power of stare decisis, if a law is passed that is consistent with the Constitution, such a law can trump any of that.

And when there has been no code law to trump precedent, still, even then, a court might (occasionally) refuse to abide by precedent. This too can be proper judicial behavior, depending on circumstances.

What is NOT proper is when a court chooses to ignore the limits and purposes of the Constitution in order to "reach" a determination that does violence to our form of government. And sadly, that does happen, too.

Frauds like Jokey can never acknowledge this. When such strained judicial determinations suit their partisan lie-beral political agenda, those assholes instead "defend" the indefensible via their unpersuasive ad hominem attacks on those of us who object to judicial tyranny.

This is why dishonest lie-beral stooges like Jokey have no credibility.

 

[ConHog]

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

I enjoy laughing at conservatives and liberals alike who scream bloody murder everytime a court gives a ruling they disagree with , claiming that the court is not doing their job. Never understanding, apparently, that our COTUS exactly set up a system that means the courts DO interpret the COTUS and therefor precedent DOES matter, to a point.

Precedent does matter. And it should to exactly the extent that we have, IN PART, a common law legal system.

But regardless of precedent and for all the power of stare decisis, if a law is passed that is consistent with the Constitution, such a law can trump any of that.

And when there has been no code law to trump precedent, still, even then, a court might (occasionally) refuse to abide by precedent. This too can be proper judicial behavior, depending on circumstances.

What is NOT proper is when a court chooses to ignore the limits and purposes of the Constitution in order to "reach" a determination that does violence to our form of government. And sadly, that does happen, too.

Frauds like Jokey can never acknowledge this. When such strained judicial determinations suit their partisan lie-beral political agenda, those assholes instead "defend" the indefensible via their unpersuasive ad hominem attacks on those of us who object to judicial tyranny.

This is why dishonest lie-beral stooges like Jokey have no credibility.

Sure, there are actual cases of courts abusing their power. But the claim is thrown out WAY too often, but liberals as well as conservatives alike.

And of course there are instances when a court will ignore precedent and interpret the COTUS in another direction entirely, which again is the way our COTUS was set up. It is scary how brilliant those folks were when writing the COTUS.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

STRICTLY speaking, it is incorrect to say that the US is a common law nation. It is PARTLY a common law nation.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claiming that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

britain had codified laws too.

we are a common law country. the only code state is louisiana.

you are misstating the law in the context of a constitutional discussion.

I think you are incorrect.
You have common law or case law, and statutory law are youy saying statutory law is code law?

Ciommon law is seldom used for the most part the courts use statutory law

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Damn that's just wrong.

We most absolutely do NOT live in a "common law" nation. That's simply wrong.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claimin that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

I really don't think you read any of the reply's you may read part of what was posted. But if you notice the lib part was a cut and paste from the post I was responding to.. You even responded to thast same post I did.

 

[Jack Fate]

Your explanation of Article 1, Section 8 is really amazing. How would you keep illegals out?

Exactly the way we do. Have you been reading my posts? As I said above, I like to think the Constitution can still be used to govern a society that has undergone substantial economic and social changes since 1787 (that includes dealing with the effects on immigration of a large expansion of the economic differential between the U.S. and its southern neighbor). My point is that if you assumed the document is dead--or however you'd put it--and the exact letter is all that matters, the federal government can't keep them out. That requires interpretation and precedent, which you seem to be saying is some kind of perversion.

"Exactly the way we do" isn't working. The President is not doing his constitutional duty by enforcing the law. Is that what you support?

 

[Liability]

I enjoy laughing at conservatives and liberals alike who scream bloody murder everytime a court gives a ruling they disagree with , claiming that the court is not doing their job. Never understanding, apparently, that our COTUS exactly set up a system that means the courts DO interpret the COTUS and therefor precedent DOES matter, to a point.

Precedent does matter. And it should to exactly the extent that we have, IN PART, a common law legal system.

But regardless of precedent and for all the power of stare decisis, if a law is passed that is consistent with the Constitution, such a law can trump any of that.

And when there has been no code law to trump precedent, still, even then, a court might (occasionally) refuse to abide by precedent. This too can be proper judicial behavior, depending on circumstances.

What is NOT proper is when a court chooses to ignore the limits and purposes of the Constitution in order to "reach" a determination that does violence to our form of government. And sadly, that does happen, too.

Frauds like Jokey can never acknowledge this. When such strained judicial determinations suit their partisan lie-beral political agenda, those assholes instead "defend" the indefensible via their unpersuasive ad hominem attacks on those of us who object to judicial tyranny.

This is why dishonest lie-beral stooges like Jokey have no credibility.

Sure, there are actual cases of courts abusing their power. But the claim is thrown out WAY too often, but liberals as well as conservatives alike.

And of course there are instances when a court will ignore precedent and interpret the COTUS in another direction entirely, which again is the way our COTUS was set up. It is scary how brilliant those folks were when writing the COTUS.

If the Courts engage in judicial activism somewhat less often than they are accused of it, that doesn't mean that they don't do it a whole lot more than should be considered tolerable. And there is a good reason why it has been identified as a dangerous and too frequent part of the judicial process.

But, no. When Courts "interpret" the Constitution differently on cases that are effectively similar, then the Constitution ceases to serve as a firm rein on governmental action. It cannot be the case that one court says the Constitution permits certain legislative agendas while another case says that the Constitution prohibits that same legislative activity. That's actually little better (maybe no better) than anarchy. It leads to a state of governance where there are no boundaries and that is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prohibit.