the constitution

[jillian]

Moral Absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism, or a Relative response to relative circumstance using Absolute Justification? When one makes a choice tailored to the specific circumstance that is rational and just, based on weighted importance and relevance why does it so much end up in a 5/4 split? Surely not everything is getting worked out. Things are missed entirely, things are misapplied. What kind of an example is that?

most problems are not black and white or are capable of black and white resolutions. If an issue has gone to the high court, that ALREADY means there isn't agreement among jurists.

that's life... and that's why I laugh at the pretend constitutionalists who think THEY know exactly how the document should be construed. Brilliant minds have disagreed on these issues for 200 years and some person on a messageboard thinks THEY have THE answer? Heck, you can't even get 10 civil court judges in ny to agree on what prima facie is in a no fault case! but on issues as complicates as reproductive choice or social security or respondeat superior there's supposed to be only ONE answer? it's kinda funny... (not referring to you, btw, just opining).

what do you mean "example"?

 

[Intense]

One disturbing report came from a well-respected attorney representing the dissident Chrysler creditors. Thomas Lauria, the head of White & Case's bankruptcy practice, says that he was threatened by Steven Rattner, the White House's auto task force chief. (A White House spokesman denies making any threats.)

"I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday," Lauria said on a Detroit radio show. "One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence." Lauria said that his clients were willing to compromise on 50 cents on the dollar, but the government offered them only 29 cents.

In the Federalist Papers in 1788, James Madison wrote that "laws impairing the obligation of contracts are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation." Unfortunately, Washington politicians seem to pay little attention to history, morality, or the rule of law.





Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics - CBS News

 

[Vast LWC]

Considering all of the bogey men Government has to fabricate to extend It's authority, you would think that rational minds would eventually recognize the path of Nationalization and remember what it has brought mankind in the past.They buried every mistake they made.... Literally.

See, but then you go into some crazy rant about "Nationalization".

So far, the ONLY example of a company that was taken over by the government is ONE single car company that was clearly on the brink of collapse.

That is certainly not an indication that the Obama administration is making an attempt as "Nationalization", or "Socialism" for that matter.

As far as the banks are concerned, control of shares that the government bought to stabilize those corporations is being returned to the banks. The government is not controlling them or retaining control of them. It simply used taxpayer money to make an investment in said corporations, an investment that is already paying off in nice dividends.

 

[Vast LWC]

when did it become irrelevant? it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

Because they know there are too many dumb Americans out there that have no idea what the constitution is... I would say that if we vote these people out we can change this but the same dumb Americans vote for people according to race, religion, whether they are a good speaker, etc... instead of what these people stand for politically.... and what do you know... the government educates 90% of these people...

So in summary, the Government educates the people who learn nothing about the constitution and these people vote for these people in Government.... Pretty good system huh....

And again you make generalizations about "the Constitution" being somehow obstructed, but the only item that has been mentioned so far that the constitutionality is even sketchy on is GM, and that is arguable.

What examples can you give us of something that's actually "unconstitutional"?

 

[Intense]

Moral Absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism, or a Relative response to relative circumstance using Absolute Justification? When one makes a choice tailored to the specific circumstance that is rational and just, based on weighted importance and relevance why does it so much end up in a 5/4 split? Surely not everything is getting worked out. Things are missed entirely, things are misapplied. What kind of an example is that?

most problems are not black and white or are capable of black and white resolutions. If an issue has gone to the high court, that ALREADY means there isn't agreement among jurists.

that's life... and that's why I laugh at the pretend constitutionalists who think THEY know exactly how the document should be construed. Brilliant minds have disagreed on these issues for 200 years and some person on a messageboard thinks THEY have THE answer? Heck, you can't even get 10 civil court judges in ny to agree on what prima facie is in a no fault case! but on issues as complicates as reproductive choice or social security or respondeat superior there's supposed to be only ONE answer? it's kinda funny... (not referring to you, btw, just opining).

what do you mean "example"?

I relate to what you are saying, residing in NYC, yet, The Rule of Law is still rooted in Principle. Recognizing where it gets hijacked is part of the solution. When a ruling is 180 degrees out of phase, it should be made known. Justice may not always be popular, but it does follow reason. Thoreau advised discerning through conscience. What you say is argument that Marshal screwed up big time.

Remember Hamilton's Position on the Court before He reversed His position on the Role of The Court?

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. -Hamilton

Federalist Papers Index

 

[Vast LWC]

One disturbing report came from a well-respected attorney representing the dissident Chrysler creditors. Thomas Lauria, the head of White & Case's bankruptcy practice, says that he was threatened by Steven Rattner, the White House's auto task force chief. (A White House spokesman denies making any threats.)

"I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday," Lauria said on a Detroit radio show. "One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence." Lauria said that his clients were willing to compromise on 50 cents on the dollar, but the government offered them only 29 cents.

In the Federalist Papers in 1788, James Madison wrote that "laws impairing the obligation of contracts are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation." Unfortunately, Washington politicians seem to pay little attention to history, morality, or the rule of law.

Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics - CBS News

1. The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. Nor do they have any legally binding significance concerning Constitutional law.

and

2. You're complaining because the government was bargaining hard to spend less taxpayer money on shares of a company that was obviously not worth what the shareholders were asking?

 

[saveliberty]

Coporate bailouts? I have been looking at the posts and I am having trouble determining which company you are referring to. Lehman Brothers were not bailed out at all. No major consequences from that. GM was bailed out and they still went bankrupt. Same for Chrysler. Could it be members of Congress simply didn't want to see their banker golf buddies lose their jobs?

GM was bailed out and they still went bankrupt. Same for Chrysler.???

Do you belive CBS is a credible source?

CBS) Chrysler's sad tale that led to this week's bankruptcy hearing in New York is not only an important business and political story. It also encompasses morality, the rule of law and strong-arm tactics used by some politicians.

Our story begins with the slow downfall of Chrysler, which succumbed to bankruptcy after experiencing a steep sales decline of 48 percent in one year. During its slide, Chrysler borrowed money from lenders and in return signed a contract promising that as so-called senior creditors, they'd get paid before anyone else if the company went under.

These creditors, by the way, represent something of a cross-section of America: the University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods' retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, teachers' credit unions, and so on.

A normal bankruptcy filing would be straightforward. Senior creditors get paid 100 cents on the dollar. Everyone else gets in line.

But President Obama and his allies don't want that to happen. So they interfered on behalf of unions (the junior creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who were asserting their contractual rights and threatening to head to bankruptcy court.

Last week Mr. Obama lambasted them as "a small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else."

Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, sent reporters a statement calling the creditors "vultures" and "rouge hedge funds." Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm piled on, taking aim during her radio address at a "few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere."

It must be a coincidence that the United Auto Workers has handed $25.4 million to federal politicians over the last two decades, with 99 percent of that cash going to Democrats. And that Mr. Obama's final campaign stop on Election Day was a UAW phone bank.

If those politicians thought about this a bit more, they'd probably realize their mistake. Creditors didn't force Chrysler's management to head to the capital markets and beg for funds: It was poor management, uncompetitive wages, and a union that opposed pay cuts.

Just what is your question about GM and Chrysler going bankrupt? Yes they did. Certainly not in the coventional sense. If that was your point I agree. Was it misplaced loyalty? Yes. No, I don't consider CBS a credible source, but even fools can repeat things that are true.

 

[MikeHoncho]

the point i was making about entitlement programs is when they take from me and give to the collective with out my consent, i believe they call that stealing. entitlement programs are only used as a marketing tool for inpressionable people to believe the government can handle your property better than you can. people are willing to give up their liberty for the idea that it will be better because the government says it will. when did we become so crippled to trust someone whos track record is a failure when it comes to entitlement programs. they claim to be fore the little guy, well tell them to take their foot of his throat.

That is not called stealing, it is called being a member of society

If your tax money is used for police or fire protection that you do not use, it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for schools that you do not use....it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for roads you do not drive on...it is not stealing

Our society is based on doing things for the collective good. Those decisions are made by the rightfully elected representatives of our government. Just because you do not benefit or want money used for something does not violate the Constitution

yes part of society is to pay taxes. i'm specifically talking about MY money. you know the income that I earn. i didnt see the government come to my job and put in 15 hours of my work week? as i stated before i dont care about any other taxes other than that of MY Income. you want to make a national sales tax, fin. you want to tax certain commodities. fine.. part of society shouldnt be to take whats yours and give it to somone else. sorry i dont want to subscribe to that.

if they were to propose a bill that said you had to pay your neighbors bills if he wasnt able to, you would think thats absurd. they have no right to mandate i pay anything for someone else. but yet if they just take a little from the collective we all agree its best for everyone. sorry i wouldnt care if they took a penny from my paycheck, its mine.

 

[Ame®icano]

the point i was making about entitlement programs is when they take from me and give to the collective with out my consent, i believe they call that stealing. entitlement programs are only used as a marketing tool for inpressionable people to believe the government can handle your property better than you can. people are willing to give up their liberty for the idea that it will be better because the government says it will. when did we become so crippled to trust someone whos track record is a failure when it comes to entitlement programs. they claim to be fore the little guy, well tell them to take their foot of his throat.

That is not called stealing, it is called being a member of society

If your tax money is used for police or fire protection that you do not use, it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for schools that you do not use....it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for roads you do not drive on...it is not stealing

Our society is based on doing things for the collective good. Those decisions are made by the rightfully elected representatives of our government. Just because you do not benefit or want money used for something does not violate the Constitution

Got your welfare check yet?

 

[MikeHoncho]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

 

[Ame®icano]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

The same people do not see the difference in between promoting and providing.

 

[saveliberty]

the point i was making about entitlement programs is when they take from me and give to the collective with out my consent, i believe they call that stealing. entitlement programs are only used as a marketing tool for inpressionable people to believe the government can handle your property better than you can. people are willing to give up their liberty for the idea that it will be better because the government says it will. when did we become so crippled to trust someone whos track record is a failure when it comes to entitlement programs. they claim to be fore the little guy, well tell them to take their foot of his throat.

That is not called stealing, it is called being a member of society

If your tax money is used for police or fire protection that you do not use, it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for schools that you do not use....it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for roads you do not drive on...it is not stealing

Our society is based on doing things for the collective good. Those decisions are made by the rightfully elected representatives of our government. Just because you do not benefit or want money used for something does not violate the Constitution

Since when is our society based on collective good? It is life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the individual. When someone takes your money or property without asking it is stealing. You just got used to it.

 

[MikeHoncho]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

The same people do not see the difference in between promoting and providing.

" do not seperate text from historical backround. if you do, you have perverted the subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of ilegitimate government." James Madison

"charity is no part of the legislateive duty of the government" James madison

i'd say that pretty much sums it up.

 

[jillian]

I relate to what you are saying, residing in NYC, yet, The Rule of Law is still rooted in Principle. Recognizing where it gets hijacked is part of the solution. When a ruling is 180 degrees out of phase, it should be made known. Justice may not always be popular, but it does follow reason. Thoreau advised discerning through conscience. What you say is argument that Marshal screwed up big time.

Remember Hamilton's Position on the Court before He reversed His position on the Role of The Court?

Do you know what I always did when my clients started talking about "justice" and "rule of law" and the like.... I stared at them.... and then I told them about reality. Law is about INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES with INDIVIDUAL opinions on INDIVIDUAL issues. You can not like that or you can like it... the reality is that it depends on which side of the table you're sitting at. If you're a corporation being sued for employment discrimination, you will love Scalia and Thomas because they don't believe in enforcing those laws even though they are on the books. They don't SAY they don't want to enforce them, they just construe the enabling statutes in such a way as to limit the scope of the law's protection. If you're a homosexual who wants their marriage recognized as legal in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, you'll more likely appreciate Justice Ginzberg or Breyer.

And what any lawyer knows is that "activist" (since that is what you're talking about) is any judge who doesn't agree with you....

as for Hamilton, nice words. but they have no more weight than, say, Senator Schumer talking about his take on gun control..... it's a politician's pov. Sorry, but it's true.

Again, the Constitution is a great document as a "framework" for maintaining the balance of power in our society. It is NOT some fundie's bible....

And you can complain about inconsistency and messiness all you want. Life is messy... so is law.

 

[MikeHoncho]

are you suggesting that if i broke into your house stole your stuff, cash, and credit cards that it would be ok as long as i used those things to feed starving children. no, you sould say i broke the law by coming into YOUR home and taking whats yours. but if the government does it for whatever they see fit, you say "here let me unlock the front door for ya and just take what ya need." smart.

 

[Vast LWC]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

No, the "General Welfare" refers to providing for the health and wellness of the populace, not providing whatever they want.

Health care, specifically, is obviously covered under a clause that refers to "General Welfare".

It would be argued, however, that actual "welfare", for people who are able and ready to work, would not be covered. Which is why I supported the Clinton era "workfare" legislation.

 

[Vast LWC]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

The same people do not see the difference in between promoting and providing.

I do see the difference.

It says "Promote" in the preamble to the Constitution.

It says "Provide" in Article 1, Paragraph 8. Specifically:

"to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

 

[rightwinger]

the point i was making about entitlement programs is when they take from me and give to the collective with out my consent, i believe they call that stealing. entitlement programs are only used as a marketing tool for inpressionable people to believe the government can handle your property better than you can. people are willing to give up their liberty for the idea that it will be better because the government says it will. when did we become so crippled to trust someone whos track record is a failure when it comes to entitlement programs. they claim to be fore the little guy, well tell them to take their foot of his throat.

That is not called stealing, it is called being a member of society

If your tax money is used for police or fire protection that you do not use, it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for schools that you do not use....it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for roads you do not drive on...it is not stealing

Our society is based on doing things for the collective good. Those decisions are made by the rightfully elected representatives of our government. Just because you do not benefit or want money used for something does not violate the Constitution

Since when is our society based on collective good? It is life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the individual. When someone takes your money or property without asking it is stealing. You just got used to it.

Fire departments, Police, schools, roads, bridges are all for the collective good of society. Sorry...It ain't stealing. Its part of being a member of society.

 

[Ame®icano]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

No, the "General Welfare" refers to providing for the health and wellness of the populace, not providing whatever they want.

Health care, specifically, is obviously covered under a clause that refers to "General Welfare".

It would be argued, however, that actual "welfare", for people who are able and ready to work, would not be covered. Which is why I supported the Clinton era "workfare" legislation.

Only thing is... where do you see PROVIDING general welfare?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Vast LWC]

" do not seperate text from historical backround. if you do, you have perverted the subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of ilegitimate government." James Madison

"charity is no part of the legislateive duty of the government" James madison

i'd say that pretty much sums it up.

The Constitution was written and ratified by a large group of people with different viewpoints, that were combined to form the actual document.

Right-wing supposed "Consitutionalists" are fond of cherry-picking other literature written by one or some of the writers of the Consitution and presenting said literature as the intent of ALL the people involved.

But such literature is not legally binding, as it only explains the viewpoints of certain individuals.

The only document that has validity in a matter of arguing the Constitution is the Constitution.