Choose: Progressives or the Constitution

[Agit8r]

From the OP:

13. Why not an amendment if they are important to our nation?

a. Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.”
See ‘Marbury v. Madison.


Unchangeable:
changeless, constant, determinate, established, set, settled, stable, steadfast, steady, unaltered, unchanging, unvarying; immovable, unmovable
Unchangeable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As Marshall wrote in said in same opinion:

"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it."

It need hardly be said "long and well established" meant longer than 12 years. And so it is obvious why he deferred to the precedent of the Common Law

Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

You are, as usual, arguing against a strawman. Jurists used the same method during the late 20th Century that they used during the early 19th century.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From the OP:

13. Why not an amendment if they are important to our nation?

a. Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.”
See ‘Marbury v. Madison.


Unchangeable:
changeless, constant, determinate, established, set, settled, stable, steadfast, steady, unaltered, unchanging, unvarying; immovable, unmovable
Unchangeable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As Marshall wrote in said in same opinion:

"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it."

It need hardly be said "long and well established" meant longer than 12 years. And so it is obvious why he deferred to the precedent of the Common Law

Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

If we stipulate that yes the actual wording of the text of the Constitution can't be changed without an amendment,

could we then get back to what's relevant about judicial decisions and how they change consitutional law without changing the actual text?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As Marshall wrote in said in same opinion:

"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it."

It need hardly be said "long and well established" meant longer than 12 years. And so it is obvious why he deferred to the precedent of the Common Law

Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

If we stipulate that yes the actual wording of the text of the Constitution can't be changed without an amendment,

could we then get back to what's relevant about judicial decisions and how they change consitutional law without changing the actual text?

There’s really no cause to ‘stipulate’ anything, as that was never at issue.

Judicial review doesn’t ‘change’ the Constitution, to argue it does is ignorant.

 

[edthecynic]

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

But obviously not an infallible "god" or blacks would still be 3/5 of a man and women would still not vote. In fact the number of amendments says your "god" is quite fallible. So who's to say who made more errors, the Constitution or the Extreme Court? Neither one seems all that godly!!!

Why must you insist on proving what a fool you are.....??

Trust me on this: it's evident to all.

The OP is about the amendment process, and announced that the Founders realized the Constitution could have flaws.



Yes...that is in the OP.

The fool is the one who worships a "flawed" god!!!!
That's YOU!

So we are back to the fact that Justices are no more or less "flawed" than the Constitution or the Founders and therefore no more or less "godly."
Get it?

 

[JoeB131]

Hmmm... a false dilema fallacy. Don't see those very often.


Being a modern humane state vs. following the supposed whims of dead slave-owners from 200 years ago.

Gee, that's a tough one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Marshall wrote in said in same opinion:

"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it."

It need hardly be said "long and well established" meant longer than 12 years. And so it is obvious why he deferred to the precedent of the Common Law

Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

You are, as usual, arguing against a strawman. Jurists used the same method during the late 20th Century that they used during the early 19th century.

Now, now....don't pretend that you don't realize that I'm not stating that it hasn't been done....rather, it has been done incorrectly and illegally.


As they say, one can only find justice in the dictionary and the cemetery.



The Constitution is unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Marshall wrote in said in same opinion:

"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it."

It need hardly be said "long and well established" meant longer than 12 years. And so it is obvious why he deferred to the precedent of the Common Law

Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

If we stipulate that yes the actual wording of the text of the Constitution can't be changed without an amendment,

could we then get back to what's relevant about judicial decisions and how they change consitutional law without changing the actual text?

I accept your throwing in the towel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

If we stipulate that yes the actual wording of the text of the Constitution can't be changed without an amendment,

could we then get back to what's relevant about judicial decisions and how they change consitutional law without changing the actual text?

There’s really no cause to ‘stipulate’ anything, as that was never at issue.

Judicial review doesn’t ‘change’ the Constitution, to argue it does is ignorant.

You're a fool.

Assuming, of course that you can read.

The argument that I've made in this thread is one every law student with integrity should have made in law school....

...and if that was too dangerous to the chance of graduation....every lawyer should have stood up for the idea after graduation.


If you fit into either of those designations, ...that would make you a fraud and a coward.
Your recitation of truth reeks of the same skills that ended the career of Milli Vanilli.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But obviously not an infallible "god" or blacks would still be 3/5 of a man and women would still not vote. In fact the number of amendments says your "god" is quite fallible. So who's to say who made more errors, the Constitution or the Extreme Court? Neither one seems all that godly!!!

Why must you insist on proving what a fool you are.....??

Trust me on this: it's evident to all.

The OP is about the amendment process, and announced that the Founders realized the Constitution could have flaws.



Yes...that is in the OP.

The fool is the one who worships a "flawed" god!!!!
That's YOU!

So we are back to the fact that Justices are no more or less "flawed" than the Constitution or the Founders and therefore no more or less "godly."
Get it?

Isn't it lucky that the Founders provided the amendment process to take care of those flaws.

Brilliant, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm... a false dilema fallacy. Don't see those very often.


Being a modern humane state vs. following the supposed whims of dead slave-owners from 200 years ago.

Gee, that's a tough one.

It appears that the concepts involved in this thread are over your head.

Too bad you never studied history.




BTW....from the OP:

4. Here’s for-instance. Whether the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person because the Founders felt slaves less than human, or because allowing as a full person would prove the South 40% more toward representation in government, and therefore prevent ever doing away with slavery…it was recognized as needing a change. And section 2 of the 14th amendment did just that.
Passed by Republicans, btw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.

If we stipulate that yes the actual wording of the text of the Constitution can't be changed without an amendment,

could we then get back to what's relevant about judicial decisions and how they change consitutional law without changing the actual text?

There’s really no cause to ‘stipulate’ anything, as that was never at issue.

Judicial review doesn’t ‘change’ the Constitution, to argue it does is ignorant.

The point of judicial review is to tell disputants who is right and who is wrong. That's all.

 

[JoeB131]

Hmmm... a false dilema fallacy. Don't see those very often.


Being a modern humane state vs. following the supposed whims of dead slave-owners from 200 years ago.

Gee, that's a tough one.

It appears that the concepts involved in this thread are over your head.

Too bad you never studied history.

You mean other than that degree the University of Illinois gave me in history?

Ummm... yeah.

The thing is, you guys treat the writing of the Founding Slave Rapists like they are some kind of holy writ. They weren't. They were an Aristocracy trying to establish independence. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they had lost, we'd be Canadians, and we'd be just as free as we are now.

Slavery would have been abolished without a civil war.

We'd have single payer health care instead of the abortion we have now.

I just can't see these things as anything but positive developments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why must you insist on proving what a fool you are.....??

Trust me on this: it's evident to all.

The OP is about the amendment process, and announced that the Founders realized the Constitution could have flaws.



Yes...that is in the OP.

The fool is the one who worships a "flawed" god!!!!
That's YOU!

So we are back to the fact that Justices are no more or less "flawed" than the Constitution or the Founders and therefore no more or less "godly."
Get it?

Isn't it lucky that the Founders provided the amendment process to take care of those flaws.

Brilliant, huh?

But according to you, we don't need the amendment process to fix what you perceive to be the 'flaw' in Roe v. Wade;

you simply want the 'flaw' to remedied by the same authority that decided Roe in the first place - SCOTUS -

so that the new decision will be someone else's 'flaw' to worry about. Correct?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm... a false dilema fallacy. Don't see those very often.


Being a modern humane state vs. following the supposed whims of dead slave-owners from 200 years ago.

Gee, that's a tough one.

It appears that the concepts involved in this thread are over your head.

Too bad you never studied history.

You mean other than that degree the University of Illinois gave me in history?

Ummm... yeah.

The thing is, you guys treat the writing of the Founding Slave Rapists like they are some kind of holy writ. They weren't. They were an Aristocracy trying to establish independence. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they had lost, we'd be Canadians, and we'd be just as free as we are now.

Slavery would have been abolished without a civil war.

We'd have single payer health care instead of the abortion we have now.

I just can't see these things as anything but positive developments.

I've seen you post that often....I just haven't seen that you learned anything.

If you write a nice letter, and include a sample of your posts....and threaten to tell folks that you went there....I'm sure they's refund every penny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hmmm... a false dilema fallacy. Don't see those very often.


Being a modern humane state vs. following the supposed whims of dead slave-owners from 200 years ago.

Gee, that's a tough one.

It appears that the concepts involved in this thread are over your head.

Too bad you never studied history.




BTW....from the OP:

4. Here’s for-instance. Whether the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person because the Founders felt slaves less than human, or because allowing as a full person would prove the South 40% more toward representation in government, and therefore prevent ever doing away with slavery…it was recognized as needing a change. And section 2 of the 14th amendment did just that.
Passed by Republicans, btw.

The same amendment that gives a woman the right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, in some cases. Passed by Republicans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm... a false dilema fallacy. Don't see those very often.


Being a modern humane state vs. following the supposed whims of dead slave-owners from 200 years ago.

Gee, that's a tough one.

It appears that the concepts involved in this thread are over your head.

Too bad you never studied history.




BTW....from the OP:

4. Here’s for-instance. Whether the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person because the Founders felt slaves less than human, or because allowing as a full person would prove the South 40% more toward representation in government, and therefore prevent ever doing away with slavery…it was recognized as needing a change. And section 2 of the 14th amendment did just that.
Passed by Republicans, btw.

The same amendment that gives a woman the right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, in some cases. Passed by Republicans.

pe·num·bra
/peˈnəmbrə/
Noun
The partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.
The shadow cast by the earth or moon over an area experiencing a partial eclipse.



See if you can puzzle through why I provided this definition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It appears that the concepts involved in this thread are over your head.

Too bad you never studied history.




BTW....from the OP:

4. Here’s for-instance. Whether the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person because the Founders felt slaves less than human, or because allowing as a full person would prove the South 40% more toward representation in government, and therefore prevent ever doing away with slavery…it was recognized as needing a change. And section 2 of the 14th amendment did just that.
Passed by Republicans, btw.

The same amendment that gives a woman the right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, in some cases. Passed by Republicans.

pe·num·bra
/peˈnəmbrə/
Noun
The partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.
The shadow cast by the earth or moon over an area experiencing a partial eclipse.



See if you can puzzle through why I provided this definition.

It's no puzzle. It's because you're a stupid person who is incapable of arguing an issue on the facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The same amendment that gives a woman the right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, in some cases. Passed by Republicans.

pe·num·bra
/peˈnəmbrə/
Noun
The partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.
The shadow cast by the earth or moon over an area experiencing a partial eclipse.



See if you can puzzle through why I provided this definition.

It's no puzzle. It's because you're a stupid person who is incapable of arguing an issue on the facts.

So saith the loser.

 

[NYcarbineer]

pe·num·bra
/peˈnəmbrə/
Noun
The partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.
The shadow cast by the earth or moon over an area experiencing a partial eclipse.



See if you can puzzle through why I provided this definition.

It's no puzzle. It's because you're a stupid person who is incapable of arguing an issue on the facts.

So saith the loser.

It doesn't elevate you to make claims on a message board and then run away from a debate on them as soon as they are challenged by someone. That is as common as dirt on a farm.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's no puzzle. It's because you're a stupid person who is incapable of arguing an issue on the facts.

So saith the loser.

It doesn't elevate you to make claims on a message board and then run away from a debate on them as soon as they are challenged by someone. That is as common as dirt on a farm.

I graciously accepted your capitulation earlier....what more do you want.