Con Law Question for Libs

[Wry Catcher]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

Honestly, the answer is problematic. Congress can pass such a law, and those with a special interest can bring the matter to court. If they lose, they can appeal and if their appeal reaches the Supreme Court politics will decide - not the written Constitution.

Of course that opens the door to a well know and on going debate, which will never be resolved in our lifetime. The honest answer then is this: It will be found unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority, or it will be found constitutional by a 5-4 majority. Or it will be returned to the lower court on some technicality.

I do get your drift. You believe that it would be unconstitutional, an opinion that is both naive and partisan.

 

[chikenwing]

Because Americans aren't familiar with the Constitution. If it was followed like it was intended and enforced by a voting populace who actually were familiar with the problems of the government, we would never have gotten in this mess.

When the Constitution takes a backseat in the education system to everything else, you end up with a mass of youth who aren't aware the system that their ancestors gave their lives to create is slowly falling apart.

Actually, you are wrong.

It is the TeaTards and Libertarians who are unfamiliar with the Constitution and the role our legal system and resulting case law play in its execution

Burying yourself in an 18th century mindset is not the answer

Really? Are you seriously trying to tell me that liberals are more familiar with the Constitution than the right?

Yep it is trying to say that. way to funny.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative understanding of our Constitution is almost childlike

Their inability to understand nuance and the role of the courts in interpreting the document reveal how limited their understanding is

 

[sameech]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

When it comes to spending, the Congress is fairly unlimited. Obviously the Bill of rights, 13th and 14th Amendments constrain Congress. unfortunately, Congress and the President have not been doing their duty to constrain the SCOTUS or each other. Somewhere in my life, the public narrative went from creating and fostering opportunities to coercive forcing people to do or not do things trying to achieve some pipe dream society.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives have a simplistic vision of what being an American involves

To them it is flags, guns and determining who "real Americans" are

 

[DGS49]

(a) Each congressperson swears (usually on the Bible) an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Also, because the USSC is limited to "cases" and "controversies" there is no systematic way for the USSC to review a law to determine whether it is "Constitutional." It can only look at bits and pieces of laws that are individually challenged pursuant to particular factual circumstances and enforcement actions. Therefore, a Congressperson CANNOT rely on the USSC for determination of the constitutionality of laws s/he is working on, but must make a bona fide determination individually of whether the law in question is constitutional.

(b) The "living document" argument is total bullshit, and disproven by the existence of Article V, which explains in great detail how the Constitution MUST be amended. The "living document" approach renders this Article totally meaningless, which no one ever intended.

(c) Anyone who has ever stayed awake in High School Civics class will recall that we are (correctly) taught that the Federal Government is a government of LIMITED powers, as defined by the Constitution itself - in particular Article I, which details the powers of Congress. The Tenth Amendment states very explicitly that the powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government (Congress) are "...reserved to the States, respectively, and to the people." In other words, if some power is not delegated to Congress in the Constitution or Amendments, then Congress DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER.

(d) I have to wonder what many of the people posting on this thread were thinking as the public anticipated the USSC's ruling on the ACA. If the Constitution were a "living document," or if the Congress is permitted to do anything that it deems necessary for promoting the "general welfare," then what was all the fretting about? It should have been a "slam dunk." Congress did it. Congress thought it promoted the "general welfare," What's the problem?

And why was it necessary to conclude that the penalty for not getting insurance had to be deemed a tax?

You must have found it very perplexing. It was almost as if the list of enumerrated Congressional powers in Section 8 MEANT SOMETHING(!). They were not just examples of things Congress could do under the "general welfare" clause.

Again I will ask the question: Do Liberals believe that there are any limits to what Congress can spend money on? And if so, what sets those limits?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

The Federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, determine when Congress has acted in a manner not consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

For example, Congress can't use the Commerce Clause as justification to make illegal the possession of firearms in a school zone (US v. Lopez (1995)). Congress doesn't have the power to deny Federal benefits to married same-sex couples when those marriages are recognized by the couples' state of residence (US v. Windsor (2013)).

You're at liberty to do a search for other issues to see whether the courts decided that Congress acted within it authority and when it did not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again I will ask the question: Do Liberals believe that there are any limits to what Congress can spend money on? And if so, what sets those limits?

And you'll get the same answer.

The courts set those limits – having nothing to do with 'liberals' and 'conservatives.'

And the courts make that decision based on existing precedent and case law, where if the courts determined that Congress acted outside of its Constitutional authority in the past with regard to a given issue, if Congress seeks to take that same action again, the courts will again invalidate the act because it is not consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[BobPlumb]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

 

[rightwinger]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want if to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

If the courts do not set those limits, who does?

Internet posters?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Really? Are you seriously trying to tell me that liberals are more familiar with the Constitution than the right?

Liberals wrote the Constitution

You didn't answer my question. Are you suggesting liberals today are more familiar with the Constitution than the right?

They're more familiar with its case law, where conservatives are hostile to that case law.

 

[BobPlumb]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want if to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

If the courts do not set those limits, who does?

Internet posters?

Good question! But a better question is if the courts DO NOT set those limits, who does? And the answer is no one. Thus the "living document" may eventually grow to a point that there is no limited power of goverment.

 

[rightwinger]

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want if to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

If the courts do not set those limits, who does?

Internet posters?

Good question! But a better question is if the courts DO NOT set those limits, who does? And the answer is no one. Thus the "living document" may eventually grow to a point that there is no limited power of goverment.

Who determines the meaning of the Constitution?

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Means that guns are only protected as part of a well regulated militia

right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the courts in accordance with the original intent of the Framers.

The Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static'; rather, it enshrines the principles of freedom guaranteed to all Americans:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[BobPlumb]

If the courts do not set those limits, who does?

Internet posters?

Good question! But a better question is if the courts DO NOT set those limits, who does? And the answer is no one. Thus the "living document" may eventually grow to a point that there is no limited power of goverment.

Who determines the meaning of the Constitution?

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Means that guns are only protected as part of a well regulated militia

right?

It may mean that to those that do not understand grammer.

 

[rightwinger]

Good question! But a better question is if the courts DO NOT set those limits, who does? And the answer is no one. Thus the "living document" may eventually grow to a point that there is no limited power of goverment.

Who determines the meaning of the Constitution?

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Means that guns are only protected as part of a well regulated militia

right?

It may mean that to those that do not understand grammer.

Are you saying we have a different interpretation?

Who should decide who is right?

 

[BobPlumb]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the courts in accordance with the original intent of the Framers.

The Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static'; rather, it enshrines the principles of freedom guaranteed to all Americans:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fuifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

You say nonsense, then support exactly what I said.
Who decides the case law? The courts. The meaning of the constitution often mutates as the courts develop case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want if to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

If the courts do not set those limits, who does?

Internet posters?

Good question! But a better question is if the courts DO NOT set those limits, who does? And the answer is no one. Thus the "living document" may eventually grow to a point that there is no limited power of goverment.

The people set those limits.

Congress reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, where the people are solely responsible for the actions of Congress.

The problem is the people incorrectly perceive 'the government' as something separate and apart from the people – when in fact it is not; the people and the government are one in the same.

And when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those so injured may exercise their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in Federal court to seek relief.

But it is incumbent upon the people to check the power of government through the political process, and failing that, the legal process.

 

[BobPlumb]

Who determines the meaning of the Constitution?

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Means that guns are only protected as part of a well regulated militia

right?

It may mean that to those that do not understand grammer.

Are you saying we have a different interpretation?

Who should decide who is right?

I don't think anyone is disputing that the courts should decide. However, the judges should have an excellent command of the English language and be able to use a dictionary.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the courts in accordance with the original intent of the Framers.

The Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static'; rather, it enshrines the principles of freedom guaranteed to all Americans:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fuifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

You say nonsense, then support exactly what I said.
Who decides the case law? The courts. The meaning of the constitution often mutates as the courts develop case law.

Again, nonsense.

Read and comprehend Justice Kennedy's explanation of the nature of the Constitution from Lawrence, that the principles it enshrines are immutable, where the people use those unchanging principles to safeguard their civil liberties.