Ron Paul On CNN

[Ninja]

Folks, the last debate called Ron Paul a big idiot, and a liar. He is a fool!

And now that the Shrub Administration has filed a brief agreeing with the DC handgun ban, Ron Paul has my vote. I'm serious!

 

[Annie]

I might agree with that if he didn't actually go and speak to the white supremacists.



No. It was as intended when created. There were always going to be unanticipated questions. And in attempting to answer those questions, the Court would look to what the constitution was intended to do.. which is protect us from our government and protect the minority from tyranny of the majority... to protect our right to protest our government and our right to be free from unlawful search or seizure of our property... just to name a few.




Well, I agree, except to the extent set forth above. But I've never been for running around quoting our founders. Their world wasn't ours. They kept slaves; thought only landed gentry should vote and thought women were chattel....



If they wanted to limit what the Federal Government could do in the way that so many allege, the Constitution wouldn't provide that it could do whatever was "necessary and proper" to run the government. Those are pretty vague words. And in order to effectuate the purpose of the document, then it needs to be viewed broadly because "proper" means *right*... so I figure they meant government is supposed to do whatever it needs to do the right thing. That's a lot of leeway.






Ah... but as stated above. It can't be applied "literally" because the words leave a lot of latitude and were specifically intended to do so.

If the Constitution were strictly construed, Brown v the Board of Ed would not have overruled Plessy v Ferguson and segregation would still be lawful (hence white supremacists loving strict construction) because the actual words of the constitution are that all men (note it didn't say women, should we be excluded) should be treated "equally" under the law. Yet, Brown said that separate but equal was unlawful. That was a correct decision of course, but it turned on the fact that equality didn't only mean 'equally good'. There were far greater implications.

And if you look at the article I posted above, you will see that Justice Rhenquist actually said that Brown was wrongfully decided... there's something wrong with a justice saying that in this day and age and something wrong with a justice who thinks such a result would be at all in keeping with what the Constitution was intended to do.

During the 70's, the State of Connecticut outlawed the purchase of condoms. The Supreme Court said they couldn't do that because a married couple (the plaintiffs) were entitled to a right of privacy that stemmed from the penumbra emanating from the bill of rights. Lots of words, but what it came down to was... government is supposed to stay out of people's private decisions. Now, we all know there's no "right of privacy" listed in the bill of rights. Yet, if one looks at the bill of rights, one has to conclude that government isn't supposed to meddle in those things that we should be in control of ourselves.

That case was Griswold v Connecticut and it's one of the cases that gets reversed in the zeal of the right wing "strict constructionists" to reverse and undermine Roe v Wade, since it, too, was decided on the basis of right of privacy (at least in the first trimester).

So there ya go. My take on the subject.

Jillian, I'm jumping in where I shouldn't but it's always seem to me that Brown was the more literal ruling, it was Plessy that was interpretive? The judges in Plessy added on their own, 'separate, but equal.' Brown reversed that wrong precedent?

Again jumping in where I perhaps shouldn't, but it's always seemed to me that it's the Congress that should attempt to push the latitude of the elastic clause and the General Welfare clause. When brought to the SCOTUS, they are to rule whether or not the lines have been crossed via the Constitution. It's the inherent back and forth between branches that keeps power of any one somewhat in check. If both the Legislature and SCOTUS are effectively grasping at power, which is what happens in the interpretation, the federated part of our system breaks down. When either the separation of powers or the federation of powers becomes too far out of balance, it's the citizens that suffer from the breaking of the social contract.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, I'm jumping in where I shouldn't but it's always seem to me that Brown was the more literal ruling, it was Plessy that was interpretive? The judges in Plessy added on their own, 'separate, but equal.' Brown reversed that wrong precedent?

Again jumping in where I perhaps shouldn't, but it's always seemed to me that it's the Congress that should attempt to push the latitude of the elastic clause and the General Welfare clause. When brought to the SCOTUS, they are to rule whether or not the lines have been crossed via the Constitution. It's the inherent back and forth between branches that keeps power of any one somewhat in check. If both the Legislature and SCOTUS are effectively grasping at power, which is what happens in the interpretation, the federated part of our system breaks down. When either the separation of powers or the federation of powers becomes too far out of balance, it's the citizens that suffer from the breaking of the social contract.

I don't agree that Brown was the more literal ruling. And, apparently, neither did Rhenquist. The law says "equal treatment" it doesn't say "the same". Either way, that's the thing about the Constitution, it does take understanding, and ignoring that to say "well, these are the words" is simply an abbrogation of everything that's come before.

I see things differently than you. I think the average person doesn't much care about the "social contract". The average person cares about whether they can go to a store and buy a condom, whether their kids are educated. whether they can marry a person of any color (or sex) they choose, keep government from wiretapping their phones, etc. The Court has to be the most "liberal" branch of government, really, because it's the last thing that stands between us and totalitarianism. And, I hate to say it, but sometimes you have to look at the motivations of the people who complain that the constitution isn't being "strictly construed" and see what it is they really want. That should answer your question about which protects individual rights more.

 

[Annie]

I don't agree that Brown was the more literal ruling. And, apparently, neither did Rhenquist. The law says "equal treatment" it doesn't say "the same". Either way, that's the thing about the Constitution, it does take understanding, and ignoring that to say "well, these are the words" is simply an abbrogation of everything that's come before.

I see things differently than you. I think the average person doesn't much care about the "social contract". The average person cares about whether they can go to a store and buy a condom, whether their kids are educated. whether they can marry a person of any color (or sex) they choose, keep government from wiretapping their phones, etc. The Court has to be the most "liberal" branch of government, really, because it's the last thing that stands between us and totalitarianism. And, I hate to say it, but sometimes you have to look at the motivations of the people who complain that the constitution isn't being "strictly construed" and see what it is they really want. That should answer your question about which protects individual rights more.

Indeed we see many things differently, some things similarly. Separate but equal were not words from the constitution, somehow in Plessy they found their way into precedent.

In Brown, if I understand the basics, the SCOTUS overturned the precedent of Plessy saying 'separate but equal, does not necessarily equate as equal. In fact it has been proven not to be equal. Even if somehow it could be proven to be equal, it still wouldn't be constitutional.' If I've got that wrong, let me know.

Seems to me what the court did in Plessy was overreach by a mile. Made something up out of whole cloth. since so many in Congress didn't have a problem with it, little or no chance of new legislation. Both branches were working against the contract you seem to dismiss.

By the 1950's the country had changed, as had Congress and SCOTUS. What hadn't changed about SCOTUS was the desire to legislate from their rulings. Thus we get an overturn on Plessy, without voiding the first unconstitutional ruling, rather twisting until the outcome desired was reached. The same outcome that could have come, simply by saying that Plessy was inherently flawed, every bit as much as Dred Scott had been shortly before the Civil War.

I think the elastic and general welfare provide enough flexibility in most cases to allow the federal government to move where they should. By the same token, there is enough specificity from destroying the federated system. The breaking down is coming from the courts, legislating. There should be amendments when it's necessary, which have been few and far between. When the federal government is regulating condoms, etc., it's way overstepped where and what it should be involved in. If the states become too out of bounds, the courts are there for remedy.

 

[indago]

BaronVonBigmeat wrote:

For the first, oh, 100+ years or so of this nation's history, the powers of the federal government were extremely limited, and this was well understood by the courts.

Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography, wrote of the federal judiciary: "We have seen too that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers & miners, steadily working to undermine the independant rights of the States, & to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."

 

[indago]

jillian wrote:

Now, we all know there's no "right of privacy" listed in the bill of rights.

It is written, in Article Four of the Bill of Rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

 

[jillian]

jillian wrote:

It is written, in Article Four of the Bill of Rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

which concerns unreasonable searches and seizures. has no application to caselaw dealing with the right of privacy. that line of cases concerns the facts I described above, inter-racial marriage, and reproductive choice. That is where the caselaw discussions of right of privacy are.

 

[pegwinn]

The right to privacy is contained within the 9th amendment in my opinion.

The constitution does a flip flop IMO.

On the one hand, it specifically enumerates the powers of the .gov. Basically if it isn't in the document, the .gov is not supposed to do it.

On the other hand, with the exception of the bill of rights, it pointedly does not spell out rights. So, if it isn't in the document we still retain the right.

It would seem that it deliberatly limits the .gov to ensure that personal liberties are not limited.

The judiciary is the conundrum as they read the same words and yet attach the meaning of thier choice to them. Thus the question: IF it is fine and dandy to interpret the Constitution, Why bother having it at all?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I'd suggest before you get insulting that you actually read the history of the term "strict construction". The constitution was never intended to be read the way fundamentalist christians read their bible.

According to the fevered imaginings of the latter-day jurists you quote, particularly since the early 30's, yeah. According to the actual men who wrote it no.

And it's truly interesting that the claims that the Constitution should be strictly construed started to arise at the same time as the religious right started to gain a foothold in government.

This again is flatly false. There were many newspapers, even in the north, which criticized Lincoln's perverse interpretation of the constitution (he shut them down; I guess the 1st amendment needed to "change with the times" as well). There were similar critics of Woodrow Wilson's violations (he also shut down newspapers), and of course the huge violations of the constitution by FDR were criticized by John Flynn and others, for example.

I don't really care about what Madison said about the Constitution. I care about what the Court's done since Marbury v Madison. So should you since that's the law and Madison's comments aren't.

Hahaha. Somehow I knew you'd be using the "might makes right" bit. What will you say if/when the court approves of internal passports ("papers, please"), warrantless searches, detainment of muslims in camps, restrictions on free speech, etc. as being constitutional, since "the times have changed"?

Strict constructionism is a facile tool for government-haters and haters of civil rights and individual rights to use.

Many constructionists do hate intrusive government, but are also fanatics who defend civil liberties.

The judiciary is the conundrum as they read the same words and yet attach the meaning of thier choice to them. Thus the question: IF it is fine and dandy to interpret the Constitution, Why bother having it at all?

The speed limit on the road to work for me is 35 mph. But...it's a 4-lane road, nice wide lanes, perfectly straight, and few intersections. I dunno, I think we should have a "living" speed limit, maybe 50 mph or so. 35 mph is the standard, but those standards were drawn up in the 1950's. The guys that wrote those standards couldn't have imagined disc brakes and radial tires on every car.

 

[indago]

jillian wrote: "Now, we all know there's no "right of privacy" listed in the bill of rights."

indago wrote: "It is written, in Article Four of the Bill of Rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated""

jillian wrote: "which concerns unreasonable searches and seizures. has no application to caselaw dealing with the right of privacy. that line of cases concerns the facts I described above, inter-racial marriage, and reproductive choice. That is where the caselaw discussions of right of privacy are."

It is stated in Senate Document No. 92-82, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session: Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment did, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the "writs of assistance." Also, "The great end for which men entered into society was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole.... by the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set foot upon my ground without my license but he is liable to an action though the damage be nothing...."

Justice Bradley, in the case of Boyd v US, recalled the case of John Wilkes of England, who was outraged by the obnoxious seizures of his papers and effects, and for this outrage, "he sued the perpetrators and obtained a verdict of £1000 against Wood, one of the party who made the search, and £4000 against Lord Halifax, the Secretary of State who issued the warrant." Further: "The case, however, which will always be celebrated as being the occasion of Lord Camden's memorable discussion of the subject, was that of Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers, reported at length in 19 Howell's State Trials, 1029. The action was trespass for entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house in November, 1762, and breaking open his desks, boxes, &c., and searching and examining his papers. The jury rendered a special verdict, and the case was twice solemnly argued at the bar. Lord Camden pronounced the judgment of the court in Michaelmas Term, 1765, and the law as expounded by him has been regarded as settled from that time to this, and his great judgment on that occasion is considered as one of the landmarks of English liberty. It was welcomed and applauded by the lovers of liberty in the colonies as well as in the mother country. It is regarded as one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution, and is quoted as such by the English authorities on that subject down to the present time."

Justice Bradley reviewed the history that Lord Camden expounded, in which he arrived at the conclusion that "upon the whole we are all of opinion, that the warrant to seize and carry away the party's papers in the case of a seditious libel, is illegal and void." Justice Bradley continued the opinion in the case of Boyd v US: "The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property... Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of that judgment. ...It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. ...It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. — Miranda v Arizona

 

[Dr Grump]

I dunno, I think we should have a "living" speed limit, maybe 50 mph or so. 35 mph is the standard, but those standards were drawn up in the 1950's. The guys that wrote those standards couldn't have imagined disc brakes and radial tires on every car.

You are absolutely right. It should be changed....

 

[pegwinn]

The speed limit on the road to work for me is 35 mph. But...it's a 4-lane road, nice wide lanes, perfectly straight, and few intersections. I dunno, I think we should have a "living" speed limit, maybe 50 mph or so. 35 mph is the standard, but those standards were drawn up in the 1950's. The guys that wrote those standards couldn't have imagined disc brakes and radial tires on every car.

LOL. I used to lecture Marines that the speed limits on base were not suggestions from the CG. Never did no good.