Palin Tells Constitution-Loving Tea Partiers: We Don’t Need A President Who Is A ‘Con

[AllieBaba]

Precisely.
And their constant whining about how stupid the majority of the people are, how everyone but them is stupid, how anyone who is Christian is stupid, how anyone who votes Republican is stupid, how birth rates of the stupid people should be controlled, how everyone who lives in a berg less than 200,000 strong is stupid...it gets so annoying.

 

[Vanquish]

Who are these posts directed towards?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This I agree with 100%. In particular:

The 10th Amendment is not the be-all, fix-all that most conservatives want it to be. That being said, judicial activism (judges rewriting laws by the stroke of their opinion pen) is a terrible thing.

I've said elsewhere that the wording of the 10th Ammendment doesn't take into account "implied" powers of the Executive in particular, and as such has been ignored throughout American history, in some cases correctly. For example: As Commander in Chief the President clearly controls intelligence gathering agencies ran out of the Army or Navy, but where in the Constitution does it provide for independent intelligence organizations such as the NSA or CIA, and where does it say those organizations have to fall under Executive control?

That certainly seems implied by the Constitution, and as such we give it a free pass when it comes to the 10 ammendment. A similar argument could be made in the context of Judicial Review, as the idea of legal precedent combined with the status of the SCOTUS as the high court of the land would certainly imply Judicial Review.

Judicial Activism should be grounds for impeaching Justices. The Impeachment process is one of the original checks provided on the Judicial branch and the fact that check has not been used has led to some of the excesses that both Liberals and Conservatives decry as Judicial Activism.

The constitution is a living document - but not in the sense that you get to re-interpret the words however you want them. The whole point of having a written document is to hold people to what's been put down on paper.

It's a living document in that you can amend it through the representative democratic process.

Which should have been used more often, especially to clarify the 10th Ammendment and the other Bill of Rights issues. For example: Most sane people agree the right to bear arms doesn't mean that a private citizen should be allowed to buy and sell nuclear armaments. But where the line is drawn between arms (protected) and artillery (Controlled) is messy and needs to be clarified.

Personally I'm a textualist - original intent is important, but so are the actual words used in the document.

which style of constitutional interpretation fits you ?

The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation, but come on...we have to follow their spirit otherwise we're lost.

Where it makes sense and can be determined, I am in favor of following intent. The Founders weren't perfect, weren't of a single mind on practically any issue, and knew that. It is pretty rare you can point to a single issue and say decisively that ALL of the Founding Fathers would have shared the same opinion. That undercuts intent a bit, as we have to choose who to listen to in the group.

In addition, the Founders never foresaw America's role as a World Economic, Political, and Military Superpower. They hoped we would be a shining beacon to the world, they never foresaw us actually leading it. They'd have likely been horrified at the expanse of our standing army, but the reality is a standing army has become necessary to our defense and security in this day and age. In this case, we abandon the Intent because it doesn't fit the current reality.

Point is: Origianl intent is preferable, but is not always possible or wise.

 

[Vanquish]

I think I've found my constitutional twin! You put it perfectly.

 

[Dr.House]

No, elitist is making fun of people because they don't come from LA, NYC, Chicago or Europe.

i look down on people from LA, NYC, & Chicago.

I look down on idiots and dishonest irrational assholes from all parts of the world, mainly the ones that think they are smart and know what they are talking about

So you're a self-hating lib....

 

[tigerbob]

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0DUsGSMwZY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0DUsGSMwZY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Chudnovsky...sorry.

Chudnovsky brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mountains of Pi (an incredible read):

Profiles: The Mountains of Pi : The New Yorker

BTW, that was good reading. I wasn't aware that there were any generalists left in Mathematics at all. It shouldn't surprise me that if one exsisted, it would be in number theory as that topic seems to involve all branches of mathematics.

 

[Dr Gregg]

i look down on people from LA, NYC, & Chicago.

I look down on idiots and dishonest irrational assholes from all parts of the world, mainly the ones that think they are smart and know what they are talking about

So you're a self-hating lib....

and your just a downright pathetic loser scouring the internet to attack me. Moron