Why do we ask what the founding fathers would have wanted?

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

Nonsense. Those who authored and ratified the Constitution, and its amendments, decided. The entire point of the a constitution is that it's NOT subject to arbitrary change. It's not a matter of democracy and it's not matter of judicial decree.

The entire point of the Constitution is that it is not set in stone. Today We the People through our SCOTUS decide, not the Founders.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

Nonsense. Those who authored and ratified the Constitution, and its amendments, decided. The entire point of the a constitution is that it's NOT subject to arbitrary change. It's not a matter of democracy and it's not matter of judicial decree.

The entire point of the Constitution is that it is not set in stone. Today We the People through our SCOTUS decide, not the Founders.

If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be, there's no need for a constitution. Ordinary laws would be fine. But no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority. Thus we have limits on what "We the People" can force on "The Rest of Us". THAT's the point of our Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be" is not what I said.

"no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority" is a good sentence: makes sense.

"Thus we have limits on what 'We the People' can force on 'The Rest of Us'" is why SCOTUS makes those decisions.

 

[dblack]

"If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be" is not what I said.

"no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority" is a good sentence: makes sense.

"Thus we have limits on what 'We the People' can force on 'The Rest of Us'" is why SCOTUS makes those decisions.

It's possible you're not the fascist you play on USMB. It's also possible you're equivocating. What exactly DO you mean by "We the People through our SCOTUS decide"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be" is not what I said.

"no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority" is a good sentence: makes sense.

"Thus we have limits on what 'We the People' can force on 'The Rest of Us'" is why SCOTUS makes those decisions.

It's possible you're not the fascist you play on USMB. It's also possible you're equivocating. What exactly DO you mean by "We the People through our SCOTUS decide"?

A person who believes in the Constitution and the republic is never a fascist, while those who call such a fascist need to be looked at much more closely for hidden agendas. SCOTUS is chosen by the President, ratified by the Senate, both of which are chosen by We the People. It is called republicanism, podjo.

 

[dblack]

"If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be" is not what I said.

"no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority" is a good sentence: makes sense.

"Thus we have limits on what 'We the People' can force on 'The Rest of Us'" is why SCOTUS makes those decisions.

It's possible you're not the fascist you play on USMB. It's also possible you're equivocating. What exactly DO you mean by "We the People through our SCOTUS decide"?

A person who believes in the Constitution and the republic is never a fascist, while those who call such a fascist need to be looked at much more closely for hidden agendas. SCOTUS is chosen by the President, ratified by the Senate, both of which are chosen by We the People. It is called republicanism, podjo.

As I suspected, equivocating.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be" is not what I said.

"no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority" is a good sentence: makes sense.

"Thus we have limits on what 'We the People' can force on 'The Rest of Us'" is why SCOTUS makes those decisions.

It's possible you're not the fascist you play on USMB. It's also possible you're equivocating. What exactly DO you mean by "We the People through our SCOTUS decide"?

A person who believes in the Constitution and the republic is never a fascist, while those who call such a fascist need to be looked at much more closely for hidden agendas. SCOTUS is chosen by the President, ratified by the Senate, both of which are chosen by We the People. It is called republicanism, podjo.

As I suspected, equivocating.

Equivocating? How?

 

[dblack]

"If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be" is not what I said.

"no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority" is a good sentence: makes sense.

"Thus we have limits on what 'We the People' can force on 'The Rest of Us'" is why SCOTUS makes those decisions.

It's possible you're not the fascist you play on USMB. It's also possible you're equivocating. What exactly DO you mean by "We the People through our SCOTUS decide"?

A person who believes in the Constitution and the republic is never a fascist, while those who call such a fascist need to be looked at much more closely for hidden agendas. SCOTUS is chosen by the President, ratified by the Senate, both of which are chosen by We the People. It is called republicanism, podjo.

As I suspected, equivocating.

Equivocating? How?

Well, you give lip service to the idea that government should be limited by Constitutional rules, yet you endorse the idea that those rules should be subject to change by decisions of the Court. Further, you justify that because they are appointed by democratically appointed representatives. You're arguing for the idea that we should be able to change the meaning of the Constitution outside the amendment process. By electing leaders who will appoint Justices who will reinterpret the law as we desire, we do an end run around the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article III makes it quite clear that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in all matters constitutional. I certainly support their selection and ratification by the President and the Senators. Only a libertarian are a far right extremist would suggest that the Amendment process in the only way to change the Constitution. You can stay in pre-1803 American emotionally; no rational individual will join you.

 

[Davros]

Why should we care what the founders thought?

because they where extreme geniuses who understood that govt had been the source of evil in human history and that any new govt must be keep very very limited to be in harmony with nature's God.

You need to learn the rules spelling, capitalization, and grammar.

Ironic you say that with a grammatically incorrect sentence...

Mine was a tyoo. His was the result of ignorance.

 

[dblack]

Article III makes it quite clear that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in all matters constitutional. I certainly support their selection and ratification by the President and the Senators. Only a libertarian are a far right extremist would suggest that the Amendment process in the only way to change the Constitution. You can stay in pre-1803 American emotionally; no rational individual will join you. [emoji38]

Yep, you get caught equivocating and deflect with an irrelevant attempt to equate libertarians with "far right extremists". This is exactly why I rarely waste time with your nonsense.

 

[kaz]

Why should we care what the founders thought?

because they where extreme geniuses who understood that govt had been the source of evil in human history and that any new govt must be keep very very limited to be in harmony with nature's God.

You need to learn the rules spelling, capitalization, and grammar.

Ironic you say that with a grammatically incorrect sentence...

Mine was a tyoo. His was the result of ignorance.

I only comment on spelling and grammar to people who comment on intelligence or spelling and grammar. If you 're going to do that, maybe you should edit your own posts. I personally think spelling and grammar policing is pretty stupid

 

[Davros]

Why should we care what the founders thought?

because they where extreme geniuses who understood that govt had been the source of evil in human history and that any new govt must be keep very very limited to be in harmony with nature's God.

You need to learn the rules spelling, capitalization, and grammar.

Ironic you say that with a grammatically incorrect sentence...

Mine was a tyoo. His was the result of ignorance.

I only comment on spelling and grammar to people who comment on intelligence or spelling and grammar. If you 're going to do that, maybe you should edit your own posts. I personally think spelling and grammar policing is pretty stupid

I think it's essential.

 

[Ernie S.]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

Nonsense. Those who authored and ratified the Constitution, and its amendments, decided. The entire point of the a constitution is that it's NOT subject to arbitrary change. It's not a matter of democracy and it's not matter of judicial decree.

Fake Smarmy is on ignore, so when someone replies to him, his quote doesn't show.
Your post appears directly after mine on my screen, so when I saw "nonsense", I was a bit taken aback.
Then I read farther and you essentially agreed lock stock and barrel with me.
Imagine my surprise when I click "reply" and see Fakey's asinine comment. Arguably, there is some unfortunate truth in it though. SCOTUS doesn't care about original intent, or even original definitions. They are SCOTUS, they don't have to preform their intended function when they can redefine it any time they want. We may elect a Conservative POTUS next November who will appoint 2 or 3 new Justices that will reconsider recent decisions regarding obamacare.
SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution any way they want, up to and including making clubbing the shit out of fake Republicans a protected right.

You may herald their decisions now, but what happens when the ideological composition of the court changes?
Would Fakey be happy with Dred Scott? With a decision overturning Roe v Wade?
I'm of the opinion that the only way to ensure our rights aren't eroded incrementally by politically motivated court decisions is to amend the COTUS to ensure that ALL court decisions are based on strict original intent, using 1783 dictionaries for any word in question and Convention notes and Federalist papers for information on intent.
Any further new "rights" or the infringement of our old rights would need to be covered in a new amendment.

 

[Ernie S.]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

Nonsense. Those who authored and ratified the Constitution, and its amendments, decided. The entire point of the a constitution is that it's NOT subject to arbitrary change. It's not a matter of democracy and it's not matter of judicial decree.

The entire point of the Constitution is that it is not set in stone. Today We the People through our SCOTUS decide, not the Founders.

If "We the People" are to decide what the powers of government should be, there's no need for a constitution. Ordinary laws would be fine. But no sane person would sign their rights away to the unlimited whim of the majority. Thus we have limits on what "We the People" can force on "The Rest of Us". THAT's the point of our Constitution.

Dayum! Shit like this is precisely why FakeSmarmy is on ignore

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why do we ask the Founders
?

if not them who exactly?

 

[kaz]

because they where extreme geniuses who understood that govt had been the source of evil in human history and that any new govt must be keep very very limited to be in harmony with nature's God.

You need to learn the rules spelling, capitalization, and grammar.

Ironic you say that with a grammatically incorrect sentence...

Mine was a tyoo. His was the result of ignorance.

I only comment on spelling and grammar to people who comment on intelligence or spelling and grammar. If you 're going to do that, maybe you should edit your own posts. I personally think spelling and grammar policing is pretty stupid

I think it's essential.

You mean since you suck at grammar?

 

[Spare_change]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

WOW! Is it possible to be more wrong, and demonstrate more ignorance, in only 11 words???

I don't think so ... you may have achieved perfection.

 

[Spare_change]

The Constitution exists today, and our SCOTUS decides today not the Founders.

Nonsense. Those who authored and ratified the Constitution, and its amendments, decided. The entire point of the a constitution is that it's NOT subject to arbitrary change. It's not a matter of democracy and it's not matter of judicial decree.

The entire point of the Constitution is that it is not set in stone. Today We the People through our SCOTUS decide, not the Founders.

What? When is the last time "We the People" has had any influence on a SCOTUS decision? They are there to take that influence out of the laws, and to ensure those laws comply with the words of our founders.

Wow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The American people far more trust SCOTUS than folks like Spare_change