The only Constitutional means to change the MEANING of the Constitution.

[Gunny]

They did not lay down rules for technology that are out of date because they had no concept about Twitter. What they laid down were rules for the government that are just as applicable today as they were 200 years ago. I think that proves they were smarter than you, and that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion about anything the subject at all.

It's not necessarily rules for technology, although clarifications or additions to concepts that can be more easily applied to modern technology wouldn't hurt.

But look at the debates over the citizenship clause as just one example. When that was written, there was no concept of controlled immigration or of illegality being a status rather than a behavior. That's something that has changed dramatically, yet the old language that was not intended to cover today's circumstances are being applied - because that's all the courts have, so that's what they have to use. They can't amend the thing, but they get bitched at for the result.

And, as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making laws about immigration. In fact, quite a few laws exist that cover that already, and the Supreme Court apparently has no problems with them. I also believe that the court has ruled that Congress even has the power to define exactly what is, and is not, meant by the words used, like natural born citizen.

The only serious problem we have now regarding immigration is the result of an Amendment to the original language of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on every person born in the US, so trying to blame the original language and saying that the Constitution should be easier to amend doesn't make sense. That would just open us up to more problems that we don't need, just like every state that has a bunch of amendments and later revocations of those amendments. Do you really want to see more mistakes like prohibition eneacted on a national scale?

Did you spend a lot of time thinking about this? Sure, Congress makes no laws about immigration. It doesn't make laws about a LOT of things Congress feels free to usurp from the states. The Right to unjoin (secede) from a something one voluntarily joins comes to mind.

You idiots like to make your own definitions of the Constitution up when you're dumber'n fucking bricks. Learn to read and comprehend.

The Union, in 1868 with the Marshall v Texas decision which is based on NOTHING TANGIBLE made the Fed omnipotent. Except not if you can read and comprehend English. Anyone that can, knows that the Fed used force of arms to subjugate people attempting to exercise their First Amendment Rights. The Right to be free.

Now, you take your little lame ass argument back your basement and re work it until it's actually legal according to the Constitution.

 

[goldcatt]

They did not lay down rules for technology that are out of date because they had no concept about Twitter. What they laid down were rules for the government that are just as applicable today as they were 200 years ago. I think that proves they were smarter than you, and that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion about anything the subject at all.

It's not necessarily rules for technology, although clarifications or additions to concepts that can be more easily applied to modern technology wouldn't hurt.

But look at the debates over the citizenship clause as just one example. When that was written, there was no concept of controlled immigration or of illegality being a status rather than a behavior. That's something that has changed dramatically, yet the old language that was not intended to cover today's circumstances are being applied - because that's all the courts have, so that's what they have to use. They can't amend the thing, but they get bitched at for the result.

And, as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making laws about immigration. In fact, quite a few laws exist that cover that already, and the Supreme Court apparently has no problems with them. I also believe that the court has ruled that Congress even has the power to define exactly what is, and is not, meant by the words used, like natural born citizen.

The only serious problem we have now regarding immigration is the result of an Amendment to the original language of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on every person born in the US, so trying to blame the original language and saying that the Constitution should be easier to amend doesn't make sense. That would just open us up to more problems that we don't need, just like every state that has a bunch of amendments and later revocations of those amendments. Do you really want to see more mistakes like prohibition eneacted on a national scale?

I never said it should be easier. Only that it should be attempted more often.

Should an override of a Presidential veto be easier? No. There is the check, and the counter. Those are both tools in our system. The counter is always and should always be difficult - but it should also be used as should any tool whenever it's deemed appropriate.

And obviously listening to congressional partisans and their fan clubs whine, they think it's appropriate. It's a tool. Why aren't they using it?

I'd make this one point abut the citizenship clause, although I don't want to derail the thread into that specifically and only offered it as an example. Look at the entirety of the COTUS, and every phrase, clause or section that deals with criminal procedure. It's geared entirely to criminal behavior and the proof thereof, correct? Then look at the illegal, who is not a criminal by any specific behavior that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but by virtue of status alone. That idea of illegality of status is a subtle but profound change that was never envisioned when the document was drafted, and while there are cobbled together rules for procedural due process and other issues there is nothing in the COTUS that is really on point.

We don't need to amend for every new technology or for every law that gets struck down, but for fundamental concepts? The tool exists. Use it.

 

[goldcatt]

If the legislature does not address it maybe that is because it is not a problem the legislature should deal with. Most of the problems the federal judiciary has to deal with are a result of the legislature making laws, not the Constitution not being modern enough for your taste.

Is it really? In some cases you'd be right. But in others, some bizarre results end up happening when the judiciary has to bend itself in a pretzel to get an outcome on a case. The COTUS simply wasn't written for the modern world. And that's fine, its core concepts and structures are solid if stretched thin and bent into pretzels to come up with a ruling on cases to which they weren't meant to apply, but if the legislative doesn't like what the courts have to say they and only they have the power to check it. That being through the amendment process.

We've had several amendments passed in order to "overrule" the courts in the past. For all the yowling we hear these days about how awful the court's interpretations are, how many amendments are proposed to change them? How often does the legislative whip out the judicial veto override?

I stand by my assessment of Congress as a pack of lazy pansies who would rather have the courts to run against than actually do anything about what they claim is a problem.

Exactly how does the court have to twist itself into a pretzel to interpret the Bill of Rights and apply it to modern technology. Most of the pretzeling I see is the courts trying to say the Constitution doesn't apply to stuff. Why else do we get the idea that you need a warrant to search a house or regular mail, but that electronic communications is not similarly protected?

You are much more experienced with this that I am, but I am willing to bet that if you thought about it you would agree. Almost all of the bad decisions and precedents are the result of the courts trying not to apply the Constitution, not them trying to apply it. Dred Scott seems to be a perfect example to me, as does the doctrine of separate plus equal and the various other decisions that effectively nullified most of the amendments after the civil war.

How does the court have to twist? Are you kidding?

Are cell phone signals traveling between the device and tower private property subject to the 4th Amendment, or since they're physically passing through public space are they outside its protections? How about wireless internet signals? Should the cops need a warrant to intercept them in the public street outside your front door or not?

These are actual cases in the system right now, BTW. I believe orals have been heard in the SCOTUS on the cell phone issue, but it's not one I've been following closely.

So what does the plain language of the 4th tell you? Warrant, or no warrant?

 

[goldcatt]

If we have a right to privacy, which I believe we do, that applies even to cell phones, or any future means of communication. Any infringement of that right requires due process, which means a warrant. The clear language of the 4th actually tells me that any search is unreasonable, and the courts have carved some exceptions to this by parsing hen we have an expectation of privacy. Even by that standard most people would have an expectation of privacy on a cell phone. I know I do not expect my conversations to be monitored, which is why I rarely use my cell phone in public.

Again, the problem here is not applying the constitution, it is trying not to apply it. Just my opinion.

Any search is unreasonable? Really? Even of stuff that's just flying around in the public space, and you're well aware or should be of the possibility it's out there and could be intercepted by anyone with the means to pick up the signal? How can you reasonably expect it to be private?

Did you ever listen to somebody else's conversation that was picked up on your cordless phone? Be honest now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not necessarily rules for technology, although clarifications or additions to concepts that can be more easily applied to modern technology wouldn't hurt.

But look at the debates over the citizenship clause as just one example. When that was written, there was no concept of controlled immigration or of illegality being a status rather than a behavior. That's something that has changed dramatically, yet the old language that was not intended to cover today's circumstances are being applied - because that's all the courts have, so that's what they have to use. They can't amend the thing, but they get bitched at for the result.

And, as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making laws about immigration. In fact, quite a few laws exist that cover that already, and the Supreme Court apparently has no problems with them. I also believe that the court has ruled that Congress even has the power to define exactly what is, and is not, meant by the words used, like natural born citizen.

The only serious problem we have now regarding immigration is the result of an Amendment to the original language of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on every person born in the US, so trying to blame the original language and saying that the Constitution should be easier to amend doesn't make sense. That would just open us up to more problems that we don't need, just like every state that has a bunch of amendments and later revocations of those amendments. Do you really want to see more mistakes like prohibition eneacted on a national scale?

I never said it should be easier. Only that it should be attempted more often.

Should an override of a Presidential veto be easier? No. There is the check, and the counter. Those are both tools in our system. The counter is always and should always be difficult - but it should also be used as should any tool whenever it's deemed appropriate.

And obviously listening to congressional partisans and their fan clubs whine, they think it's appropriate. It's a tool. Why aren't they using it?

I'd make this one point abut the citizenship clause, although I don't want to derail the thread into that specifically and only offered it as an example. Look at the entirety of the COTUS, and every phrase, clause or section that deals with criminal procedure. It's geared entirely to criminal behavior and the proof thereof, correct? Then look at the illegal, who is not a criminal by any specific behavior that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but by virtue of status alone. That idea of illegality of status is a subtle but profound change that was never envisioned when the document was drafted, and while there are cobbled together rules for procedural due process and other issues there is nothing in the COTUS that is really on point.

We don't need to amend for every new technology or for every law that gets struck down, but for fundamental concepts? The tool exists. Use it.

My mistake. It turns out I agree completely with you, and often wonder why the states do not rise up and call for a Constitutional Convention. Last time I checked we only need a handful of states to to ratify the motion and we will be able to do so. A few reactionaries keep lobbying against it because there would be no way to restrict what they produce after they convene, but anything that comes out of one would still have to go through the ratification process. Maybe if we could actually get one we could get Congress to pay more attention to the idea of a balanced budget, basic civil rights, and other basic, common sense ideas.

Is it really? In some cases you'd be right. But in others, some bizarre results end up happening when the judiciary has to bend itself in a pretzel to get an outcome on a case. The COTUS simply wasn't written for the modern world. And that's fine, its core concepts and structures are solid if stretched thin and bent into pretzels to come up with a ruling on cases to which they weren't meant to apply, but if the legislative doesn't like what the courts have to say they and only they have the power to check it. That being through the amendment process.

We've had several amendments passed in order to "overrule" the courts in the past. For all the yowling we hear these days about how awful the court's interpretations are, how many amendments are proposed to change them? How often does the legislative whip out the judicial veto override?

I stand by my assessment of Congress as a pack of lazy pansies who would rather have the courts to run against than actually do anything about what they claim is a problem.

Exactly how does the court have to twist itself into a pretzel to interpret the Bill of Rights and apply it to modern technology. Most of the pretzeling I see is the courts trying to say the Constitution doesn't apply to stuff. Why else do we get the idea that you need a warrant to search a house or regular mail, but that electronic communications is not similarly protected?

You are much more experienced with this that I am, but I am willing to bet that if you thought about it you would agree. Almost all of the bad decisions and precedents are the result of the courts trying not to apply the Constitution, not them trying to apply it. Dred Scott seems to be a perfect example to me, as does the doctrine of separate plus equal and the various other decisions that effectively nullified most of the amendments after the civil war.

How does the court have to twist? Are you kidding?

Are cell phone signals traveling between the device and tower private property subject to the 4th Amendment, or since they're physically passing through public space are they outside its protections? How about wireless internet signals? Should the cops need a warrant to intercept them in the public street outside your front door or not?

These are actual cases in the system right now, BTW. I believe orals have been heard in the SCOTUS on the cell phone issue, but it's not one I've been following closely.

So what does the plain language of the 4th tell you? Warrant, or no warrant?

If we have a right to privacy, which I believe we do, that applies even to cell phones, or any future means of communication. Any infringement of that right requires due process, which means a warrant. The clear language of the 4th actually tells me that any search is unreasonable, and the courts have carved some exceptions to this by parsing hen we have an expectation of privacy. Even by that standard most people would have an expectation of privacy on a cell phone. I know I do not expect my conversations to be monitored, which is why I rarely use my cell phone in public.

Again, the problem here is not applying the constitution, it is trying not to apply it. Just my opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we have a right to privacy, which I believe we do, that applies even to cell phones, or any future means of communication. Any infringement of that right requires due process, which means a warrant. The clear language of the 4th actually tells me that any search is unreasonable, and the courts have carved some exceptions to this by parsing hen we have an expectation of privacy. Even by that standard most people would have an expectation of privacy on a cell phone. I know I do not expect my conversations to be monitored, which is why I rarely use my cell phone in public.

Again, the problem here is not applying the constitution, it is trying not to apply it. Just my opinion.

Any search is unreasonable? Really? Even of stuff that's just flying around in the public space, and you're well aware or should be of the possibility it's out there and could be intercepted by anyone with the means to pick up the signal? How can you reasonably expect it to be private?

Did you ever listen to somebody else's conversation that was picked up on your cordless phone? Be honest now.

Just because I can break the GSM encryption on a cell phone for $15 and some freeware does not mean I have the right to do so. In fact, I am pretty sure it is illegal to do so. If it is illegal for me to do it it should require a warrant for the government to do the same thing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

There is a right to an abortion in the Constitution because there are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

I'd HOPE C-SPAN shows the "new"-congress reading The Constitution (for those illiterates who need it).

It should get pretty-damned-amusing!!!! ​

"Garrett Epps writes today that if Tea Party Republicans really listen to the Constitution, they will quickly realize that "the document they are hearing is nationalistic, not state-oriented; concerned with giving Congress power, not taking it away; forward-looking, not nostalgic for the past; aimed [at] creating a new government that can solve new problems, not freezing in place an old one that must fold its hands while the nation declines." So long as there are fair-minded judges on the bench, the Constitution will be read for what it actually says, and not what any one results-oriented group or faction wants it to be."

LIVE - Here!!!!​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

There is a right to an abortion in the Constitution because there are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.

The 5th amendment does not apply to the unborn.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a right to an abortion in the Constitution because there are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.

The 5th amendment does not apply to the unborn.

So the laws making it a criminal act to kill a mother, and her unborn child, are all unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court has allowed them to stand? Interesting.

 

[jillian]

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

There is a right to an abortion in the Constitution because there are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.

i'll bite. how do you figure?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a right to an abortion in the Constitution because there are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.

i'll bite. how do you figure?

Doesn't it say something about life in there?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What the Constitution fails to do is define person, not protect the rights of unborn children, which is why it is legally murder to shoot a pregnant woman and kill that unborn child. Roe v Wade was about balancing the right of privacy of the mother over the right of the child. It was not about denying that the child had rights, if it was it would not have gotten into all that convoluted debate about viability.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.

i'll bite. how do you figure?

Doesn't it say something about life in there?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What the Constitution fails to do is define person, not protect the rights of unborn children, which is why it is legally murder to shoot a pregnant woman and kill that unborn child. Roe v Wade was about balancing the right of privacy of the mother over the right of the child. It was not about denying that the child had rights, if it was it would not have gotten into all that convoluted debate about viability.

Roe v. Wade, by establishing that women had the right to an abortion in the first trimester declares unequivocally that the 1st trimester fetus has no rights as a person. That Roe v. Wade leaves later term abortion in the hands of the state in reality also declares that later term fetuses have no constitutionally protected rights as persons, since the states can in fact make later term abortion legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.

The 5th amendment does not apply to the unborn.

So the laws making it a criminal act to kill a mother, and her unborn child, are all unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court has allowed them to stand? Interesting.

That's a non sequitur, sorry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i'll bite. how do you figure?

Doesn't it say something about life in there?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What the Constitution fails to do is define person, not protect the rights of unborn children, which is why it is legally murder to shoot a pregnant woman and kill that unborn child. Roe v Wade was about balancing the right of privacy of the mother over the right of the child. It was not about denying that the child had rights, if it was it would not have gotten into all that convoluted debate about viability.

Roe v. Wade, by establishing that women had the right to an abortion in the first trimester declares unequivocally that the 1st trimester fetus has no rights as a person. That Roe v. Wade leaves later term abortion in the hands of the state in reality also declares that later term fetuses have no constitutionally protected rights as persons, since the states can in fact make later term abortion legal.

No it does not.

Laci and Conner's Law (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate

All Roe v Wade does is give the mother's rights legal precedence over the unborn child, it does not eliminate any rights the child has.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 5th amendment does not apply to the unborn.

So the laws making it a criminal act to kill a mother, and her unborn child, are all unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court has allowed them to stand? Interesting.

That's a non sequitur, sorry.

What makes it illogical?

 

[Sallow]

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.

i'll bite. how do you figure?

Doesn't it say something about life in there?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What the Constitution fails to do is define person, not protect the rights of unborn children, which is why it is legally murder to shoot a pregnant woman and kill that unborn child. Roe v Wade was about balancing the right of privacy of the mother over the right of the child. It was not about denying that the child had rights, if it was it would not have gotten into all that convoluted debate about viability.

Not even close. This deals with incarceration.

 

[Contumacious]

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz

HUH?

WTF?

Just look at the gargantuan size of the welfare/warfare state for your answer.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i'll bite. how do you figure?

Doesn't it say something about life in there?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What the Constitution fails to do is define person, not protect the rights of unborn children, which is why it is legally murder to shoot a pregnant woman and kill that unborn child. Roe v Wade was about balancing the right of privacy of the mother over the right of the child. It was not about denying that the child had rights, if it was it would not have gotten into all that convoluted debate about viability.

Not even close. This deals with incarceration.

What does taking property for public use have to do with incarceration?

 

[bodecea]

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.



The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

Here is where you FAIL...the Constitution limits government when it comes to our rights...nothing about our benefits.

 

[Vanquish]

This thread is full of stupid people saying stupid things. Especially the original post.

First of all, it's a partisan trolling to say that liberal judges are the only ones who are judicial activists. It's not true. It's not even CLOSE to true. Conservative judges legislate from the bench too.

That's your first fuck up.

Second, the idea that everything that's constitutional is IN the constitution...is FUCKING RETARDED AND SHOWS NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE DOCUMENT.

That's right. I fucking said it and it's true.

constitutional doctrines are bodies of caselaw that build up over time because a point of law and it's periphery get explained over and over and over. Bit builds on bit builds on bit. None of it legislating...all of it explaining and concretizing.

also...

apparently you have no understanding of the executive branch's abilities to create agencies. Agencies that ARENT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Fuck people are dumb about the law. They simplify something that's not fucking simple.

That's the problem with Bachmann's dumb ass "less all listen to Scalia's ABC's of the constitution" idea. The constitution isnt a simple, plainly read document. Suggesting otherwise is fucktardedly fucked up.