Why do you want more government in your life?

[NYcarbineer]

No only the courts can declare constitutionality.

What?! The Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It's like, you know, a branch of the federal government. You know, like, when they say our federal government is composed of three branches?

You said "the federal government" which inherently refers to all three branchs. You did not specify - duh.

Please shut up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And as argued... I am trying to see where people who assert this power of the SC, say that this power derives from within the constitution... as this is not written as a power of the federal or supreme court to reinterpret constitutionality, but this has been a power that that part of government has ASSUMED it has.... in fact there is power granted for judicial power, but nothing for constitutional interpretation at all.. the power for changes to the constitution, including rewording, addition, subtraction, etc lies solely in the amendment process

For if the SC or the federal court can continually reinterpret on whim or merely by what is said by justices at that time, then we actually have no inalienable individual rights at all... as a reinterpretation can usurp them away

How do you propose, and be specific, to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, if the Supreme Court ought not have that authority?

The writings in the constitution are very specific within the rights and powers granted... to reinterpret is to change... and as stated, any change to the constitution must be done through the amendment process.. this is laid forth in the constitution.... for example, things like Roe v Wade are reinterpretations... to have a 'right' to abortion, by the rule of law in the constitution, we would indeed have to have an amendment to make it so... there should indeed be very few challenges to constitutional interpretation or reinterpretation away from original wording or intent... and IF constitutionality questions are indeed thought to need to go to the SC, all I ask is that we follow the constitution and go to the amendment process... for the types of cases the judiciary of the fed can here are specifically laid out in section 2 of article 3

Again.. if SC judges can continually reinterpret rights or constitutionality and indeed change the intent or standing of the constitution without going thru the amendment process... then indeed we have no inalienable rights at all...
For again... Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Fed does not get to just up it's powers because it wants to or because 50.00000001% of the populace wants it to.. there is indeed a process for the constitution, which is the rule of law for the country, to go thru change

That did not in any way come within a mile of answering my question.

If you take the power of determining constitutionality away from the Supreme Court, who do you give it to,

specifically, and by what process do they determine constitutionality?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supreme Court is not the only body that can strike down laws as unconstitutional. But they are the ultimate authority. And btw the authority to do so is not in the Constitution at all but comes from Marbury v Madison.
What process do they use? They look at the history of jurisprudence on the topic, weigh the arguments offered on both sides as to whether the law is constitutional or not, and make a decision based on how persuasive those arguments are

 

[DiamondDave]

How do you propose, and be specific, to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, if the Supreme Court ought not have that authority?

The writings in the constitution are very specific within the rights and powers granted... to reinterpret is to change... and as stated, any change to the constitution must be done through the amendment process.. this is laid forth in the constitution.... for example, things like Roe v Wade are reinterpretations... to have a 'right' to abortion, by the rule of law in the constitution, we would indeed have to have an amendment to make it so... there should indeed be very few challenges to constitutional interpretation or reinterpretation away from original wording or intent... and IF constitutionality questions are indeed thought to need to go to the SC, all I ask is that we follow the constitution and go to the amendment process... for the types of cases the judiciary of the fed can here are specifically laid out in section 2 of article 3

Again.. if SC judges can continually reinterpret rights or constitutionality and indeed change the intent or standing of the constitution without going thru the amendment process... then indeed we have no inalienable rights at all...
For again... Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Fed does not get to just up it's powers because it wants to or because 50.00000001% of the populace wants it to.. there is indeed a process for the constitution, which is the rule of law for the country, to go thru change

That did not in any way come within a mile of answering my question.

If you take the power of determining constitutionality away from the Supreme Court, who do you give it to,

specifically, and by what process do they determine constitutionality?

Again.... that power is not to be held by the SC now, via the exact powers granted within the constitution... there is no power to reinterpret what is specifically written within the constitution... any reinterpretation is by nature a change to the constitution, and that change MUST go thru the amendment process.... the SC is basically an appeals court, except in cases of treason, etc... it is to determine the legality or the strength/correctness on the appealed case in it's docket....the constitution should not be continually reinterpreted at the whim of justices or by any government official...

So a basic answer to your question is all 3 branches of the federal government, as it must go thru the amendment process

 

[QUENTIN]

Please show one single arrest of anything beyond terrorist assistance that has arrived from any 'wireatap' under the premise of the war on terror.... please show where in war (or approved military action) we are not allowed to target enemies, even if they have been US citizens who now have committed treasonous acts and are actively fighting against our country and assisting the enemy directly?? And please note that this country in times of war has never had to stop and get a warrant (or retroactively go back and obtain a US courts warrant) for the interception of enemy communications, even if a source or destination was a citizen or was a place in the US... whether those communications be physical (paper, etc) or electronic (radio, wired signal,. etc)

National defense is not just sitting back and 'protecting the border or homeland'... it does also involve offensive actions off of US soil

And as argued... I am trying to see where people who assert this power of the SC, say that this power derives from within the constitution... as this is not written as a power of the federal or supreme court to reinterpret constitutionality, but this has been a power that that part of government has ASSUMED it has.... in fact there is power granted for judicial power, but nothing for constitutional interpretation at all.. the power for changes to the constitution, including rewording, addition, subtraction, etc lies solely in the amendment process

For if the SC or the federal court can continually reinterpret on whim or merely by what is said by justices at that time, then we actually have no inalienable individual rights at all... as a reinterpretation can usurp them away

How do you propose, and be specific, to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, if the Supreme Court ought not have that authority?

The writings in the constitution are very specific within the rights and powers granted... to reinterpret is to change... and as stated, any change to the constitution must be done through the amendment process.. this is laid forth in the constitution.... for example, things like Roe v Wade are reinterpretations... to have a 'right' to abortion, by the rule of law in the constitution, we would indeed have to have an amendment to make it so... there should indeed be very few challenges to constitutional interpretation or reinterpretation away from original wording or intent... and IF constitutionality questions are indeed thought to need to go to the SC, all I ask is that we follow the constitution and go to the amendment process... for the types of cases the judiciary of the fed can here are specifically laid out in section 2 of article 3

Again.. if SC judges can continually reinterpret rights or constitutionality and indeed change the intent or standing of the constitution without going thru the amendment process... then indeed we have no inalienable rights at all...
For again... Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Fed does not get to just up it's powers because it wants to or because 50.00000001% of the populace wants it to.. there is indeed a process for the constitution, which is the rule of law for the country, to go thru change

The writings in the constitution are very specific within the rights and powers granted... to reinterpret is to change... and as stated, any change to the constitution must be done through the amendment process.. this is laid forth in the constitution.... for example, things like Roe v Wade are reinterpretations... to have a 'right' to abortion, by the rule of law in the constitution, we would indeed have to have an amendment to make it so... there should indeed be very few challenges to constitutional interpretation or reinterpretation away from original wording or intent... and IF constitutionality questions are indeed thought to need to go to the SC, all I ask is that we follow the constitution and go to the amendment process... for the types of cases the judiciary of the fed can here are specifically laid out in section 2 of article 3

Again.. if SC judges can continually reinterpret rights or constitutionality and indeed change the intent or standing of the constitution without going thru the amendment process... then indeed we have no inalienable rights at all...

You keep using the word "reinterpret" which isn't what the SC is tasked to do or does. Judges don't reinterpret law. They interpret it. When a case comes before them, they interpret how the Constitution applies, that's all.

We all have disagreements with their interpretations, but just because you don't agree doesn't mean they've reinterpreted a thing. They don't do that, they don't have the power to. What is specifically invested in them and what they do on a regular basis is simply interpret the Constitution.

As for your example, they didn't reinterpret anything to declare abortion legal, they interpreted that the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment applied to a woman's person, that's all. They simply find the relevant Constitutional laws and apply them to the case at hand. No Constitutional amendment was necessary because no new law was required, the 14th amendment applied to a woman's body and as the ultimate arbiters of Constitutional law, they found as such.

You seem to fundamentally not understand the role, powers, and function of the Supreme Court.

Also, as someone who supports the executive branch's use of warrantless surveillance,
indefinite detention without trial, and other such plainly and blatantly unConstitutional behavior that knowingly violates the rights enumerated in that document, you have no ground to pretend to trumpet the rule of law. You either believe in it or you don't, the legality of an action doesn't change based on whether or not you like it, and you don't.

 

[DiamondDave]

Please show one single arrest of anything beyond terrorist assistance that has arrived from any 'wireatap' under the premise of the war on terror.... please show where in war (or approved military action) we are not allowed to target enemies, even if they have been US citizens who now have committed treasonous acts and are actively fighting against our country and assisting the enemy directly?? And please note that this country in times of war has never had to stop and get a warrant (or retroactively go back and obtain a US courts warrant) for the interception of enemy communications, even if a source or destination was a citizen or was a place in the US... whether those communications be physical (paper, etc) or electronic (radio, wired signal,. etc)

National defense is not just sitting back and 'protecting the border or homeland'... it does also involve offensive actions off of US soil

The writings in the constitution are very specific within the rights and powers granted... to reinterpret is to change... and as stated, any change to the constitution must be done through the amendment process.. this is laid forth in the constitution.... for example, things like Roe v Wade are reinterpretations... to have a 'right' to abortion, by the rule of law in the constitution, we would indeed have to have an amendment to make it so... there should indeed be very few challenges to constitutional interpretation or reinterpretation away from original wording or intent... and IF constitutionality questions are indeed thought to need to go to the SC, all I ask is that we follow the constitution and go to the amendment process... for the types of cases the judiciary of the fed can here are specifically laid out in section 2 of article 3

Again.. if SC judges can continually reinterpret rights or constitutionality and indeed change the intent or standing of the constitution without going thru the amendment process... then indeed we have no inalienable rights at all...
For again... Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Fed does not get to just up it's powers because it wants to or because 50.00000001% of the populace wants it to.. there is indeed a process for the constitution, which is the rule of law for the country, to go thru change

You keep using the word "reinterpret" which isn't what the SC is tasked to do or does. Judges don't reinterpret law. They interpret it. When a case comes before them, they interpret how the Constitution applies, that's all.

We all have disagreements with their interpretations, but just because you don't agree doesn't mean they've reinterpreted a thing. They don't do that, they don't have the power to. What is specifically invested in them and what they do on a regular basis is simply interpret the Constitution.

As for your example, they didn't reinterpret anything to declare abortion legal, they interpreted that the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment applied to a woman's person, that's all. They simply find the relevant Constitutional laws and apply them to the case at hand. No Constitutional amendment was necessary because no new law was required, the 14th amendment applied to a woman's body and as the ultimate arbiters of Constitutional law, they found as such.

You seem to fundamentally not understand the role, powers, and function of the Supreme Court.

Also, as someone who supports the executive branch's use of warrantless surveillance,
indefinite detention without trial, and other such plainly and blatantly unConstitutional behavior that knowingly violates the rights enumerated in that document, you have no ground to pretend to trumpet the rule of law. You either believe in it or you don't, the legality of an action doesn't change based on whether or not you like it, and you don't.

This is where you are wrong... because an interpretation of intent has already been made... judges, however, continually interpret and reinterpret constitutionality and make changes as a result without the amendment process

What you seem to fail to realize is that the constitution never gave the supreme court that power to interpret or reinterpret... the SC gave that power to itself without constitutional amendment, and as a result has unchecked and governed power in that matter... which is, in the spirit of our constitution, wrong

 

[Vanquish]

Wow. You're just absolutely wrong about that. Funny though.

 

[Patriot214]

The problem is not government in general, it is the evolution of our government. Today, the federal government is an uncontrollable cancer compared to the one our founders created. The original role of government was to protect the American people with a military and collect taxes to upkeep and improve our infrastructure. Does this sound like our government today?

The original income tax, when it was first imposed was 6-10%. Today, some Americans pay upwards of 60% in income tax. Not to mention, all of the other forms of taxes that have been introduced since then. Our military, which was originially intended to protect THIS country, is now spread out over the entire planet serving as world police. In the past century we have seen the introduction of "hand-out" programs such as welfare, unemployment, social security, food stamps, etc. which didn't exist when this country was founded.

Ask yourself a few questions. What is working better for you in your life? What do you trust? Do you trust in your own IRA or savings account, or do you trust in Social Security? Do you trust yourself with more of your own money, or do you trust the government to take more and use it as they best see fit? Do you trust in yourself to work hard and achieve your own goals? Or, should you wait for a hand-out from the government?

Our form of government works, when it works for the people. The problems is that it no longer does. Our elected officials work for themselves and special interests groups. Until we restore our government to its original form the people will view it as a negative body or obstacle rather than a group of representatives who serve OUR best interests.

 

[Vanquish]

Actually when it started, used to finance part of the Civil War, it was even less...around 3%, but it was progressive...meaning rich people paid more.

*gasp* The founders were progressive!!

I like that you're against us being world police though, I'm in agreement there.

I also agree that we ought to be able to opt out of Social Security if we want.

The welfare myth..is just that...a myth. Conservatives worry about that urban minority person cheating the system with 5 babies and no job...but they turn a blind eye to corporate welfare and farm subsidies (paying farmers not to plant). When people do that it's hypocritical.

here is no evidence that there is a vastly significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency. (1)

Nor are people getting rich off welfare. The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. (2) In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. (3) Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.

1. Figures provided to the 1994 Green Book, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

2. AFDC figures from U.S. Social Security Administration. Food Stamp figures from U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Annual Historical Review of FNS Programs" and unpublished data.

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States, Series P-60, No. 185, 1993.

In 1990, the poorest income group -- under $10,000 -- actually gave the highest share to charity: 5.5 percent. (Survey by Gallup Organization and Independent Sector, cited by Boston Globe, "U.S. Charities See Increase in Gifts," December 16, 1990)

Besides the fact that a lot of welfare recipients are American working people, a study in Massachusetts showed that vendors committed 93% of welfare fraud. This aspect of the welfare system drastically needs reform: it is harming recipients as well as taxpayers. But all of the political attention is on limiting the amount of money going to recipients.

And although the fraud by welfare vendors is terrible, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the burdens on the American taxpayer of military fraud, government waste, and corporate welfare. The Savings and Loan bailout alone cost $132 billion.

I've heard many people say that welfare rewards people for doing nothing, destroying their dignity and character. I guess the GAO is lying then...

In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup" or that it significantly reduces the incentive to work. The GOA report was summarized in Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, "The Historical Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate," The Mean Season: The Attack on the Welfare State, Fred Block, Richard Cloward, Barbara Ehrenriech and France Piven, editors, (New York: Pantheon, 1987), pp. 58-62

Don't base your opinions on myth and superstition about "those lazy people". Base it on facts.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow. You're just absolutely wrong about that. Funny though.

Then as asked.. please show where in the constitution that the specific power you speak of is granted to the judicial branch

Do you not agree that the constitution is indeed what gives the specific powers and limitations to the federal government?

Do you not agree that any and all changes, adds, or deletions to the constitution must be done thru the amendment process?

 

[Samson]

Actually when it started, used to finance part of the Civil War, it was even less...around 3%, but it was progressive...meaning rich people paid more.

*gasp* The founders were progressive!!.

Those founders had incredibly long lifespans to have been able to Sign the Constitution and finance the Civil War with progressive taxation.

I also understand a few served on Kennedy's Cabinet.

 

[boedicca]

And they have a locked room full of portraits of very decrepit images of themselves.

 

[Newby]

Actually when it started, used to finance part of the Civil War, it was even less...around 3%, but it was progressive...meaning rich people paid more.

*gasp* The founders were progressive!!.

Those founders had incredibly long lifespans to have been able to Sign the Constitution and finance the Civil War with progressive taxation.

I also understand a few served on Kennedy's Cabinet.

I was thinking the same thing when I read it, but consider the source.

 

[rdean]

The census.

I paid my taxes.

Other than that?

Mostly the only time I'm even aware of the government is from the white wing screaming they've lost their rights.

 

[Vanquish]

Ok. I misspoke. I said Founders...but that's not what I meant. ooooh ya got me. *roll eyes*

 

[Samson]

And they have a locked room full of portraits of very decrepit images of themselves.

Its rumored they've sequestered themselves in the VIP suite of the Arlington Cheetah V Gentleman's Club

 

[Vanquish]

You know what's the point of coming on here and talking at each other if you're just going to play partisan roles and circle-jerk each other?

"Consider the source"...way to fucking go there buddy.

Also, great job side-stepping my whole fucking post on the welfare myth. You have jack shit to say on that issue, don't you?

I honestly dont know why I fucking come here.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know what's the point of coming on here and talking at each other if you're just going to play partisan roles and circle-jerk each other?

"Consider the source"...way to fucking go there buddy.

Also, great job side-stepping my whole fucking post on the welfare myth. You have jack shit to say on that issue, don't you?

I honestly dont know why I fucking come here.

You're free to leave anytime. Honest.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh so that's what you like...silencing opposition. Great job with that.

 

[Samson]

You know what's the point of coming on here and talking at each other if you're just going to play partisan roles and circle-jerk each other?

"Consider the source"...way to fucking go there buddy.

Also, great job side-stepping my whole fucking post on the welfare myth. You have jack shit to say on that issue, don't you?

I honestly dont know why I fucking come here.

BAH....Man up....we're only jerking your chain....I'll read your "WHOLE FUCKING POST on the welfare myth," m'k?