For the people or for the elites?

[Avatar4321]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

 

[Modbert]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

In several areas of the Constitution, ten people can come up with ten different thoughts on one line. Funny thing is, all ten think they're right too.

 

[Madeline]

Avatar, the application of the constitution to new facts is never going to be clear or easy. I don't disagree that ordinary people can read the document and get a sense of how it works, but the SCOTUS was included as one of the branches of government because the Founders knew we would need a Final Arbitrator of how it is to be applied...and the SCOTUS should not be filled by plumbers and chefs, but rather by the best legal minds we can find.

I think some of the frustration Jillian has is that after the poster has mistakenly stated a constitutional rule incorrectly and she suggests a case to read to clarify, it seems like very often, no one does. The "wish that things were different" does not change the objective fact -- the constitution is as the SCOTUS has interpreted it over time, in a body of case law, and not in any other way.

I often disagree with the decisions and reasoning the SOCTUS uses. I think some of their decisions are wrong....but I live here, their decisions cannot be overturned (except by future SCOTUS decisions) and that's the way it is, at least for the time being. Discussions about how wrong they are only entertaining if we are designing a Utopia from scratch, not if we are talking about the US.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Supreme Court was not included to be the final arbiter. They assumed that role themselves. And Jefferson and a number of other Founders had a fit.

 

[Madeline]

Well first, that is how things are. And second, if there is no Final Arbitrator, then there is chaos, or struggle.

I'm sorry you are not fonder of the SCOTUS, Avatar. There are days I'm not their biggest fan either.

 

[martybegan]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

Actually the constitution has numerous parts that were put in under the assumption that the people COULD be stupid. You also have to remember that voter franchise was not universal at the time of the founding of our current government, most of them at the time were proponents of voter restrictions based on land, education, profession etc.

Such institutions as the senate, with its 6 year turnover cycle, the amendment process, and ths lifetime appointments to the supreme court were designed to prevent radical change from happening. Add in the electoral college and you create a buffer between "stupid" acts.

I understand people wanting and thinking that "ordinary" people can do everything just as well as experts, but that sadly isn't the case. A normal person can fight a fire but I would rather have a trained firefighter do it. Same with engineering. Any person could try to build a bridge, but I wouldnt want to cross one desgined by a baker.

 

[Madeline]

Maybe you could teach just about anyone Con Law. I dunno; I really struggled with it but then I had a wretched prof. What you CANNOT do is expect anyone, no matter how bright, to read the naked constitution and apply it to modern facts without any reference to the case law, and still arrive at the correct result.

"Correct" meaning the one the SCOTUS has laid down.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court was not included to be the final arbiter. They assumed that role themselves. And Jefferson and a number of other Founders had a fit.

I agree that judical review was an assumed power of the court via Marbury vs. Madison, but if the other branches and the states felt so strongly against it there was (and is) a simple remedy, amend the constitution to remove the judciaries ability to do so. That then begs the question, who now takes over for them?

The earlier congress/executives felt the judiciary was excercsing a needed task, and wisely kept it the way it was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

The problem isn't that we need the elite scholars to tell us what the Constitution says, which we can read perfectly well for ourselves. What we need the elite scholars for is to tell us all the dozens of ways the words can be parsed, twisted, and tortured in order to make it say completely different things than what any reasonably intelligent, literate American adult can read for himself. Let's face it. What average, everyday American would even know what an "emanation from the penumbra" WAS, let alone be able to find them in the Constitution without an Ivy League-educated Supreme Court Justice to tell him?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

In several areas of the Constitution, ten people can come up with ten different thoughts on one line. Funny thing is, all ten think they're right too.

And how many of those ten have been influenced by listening to Constitutional scholars?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Supreme Court was not included to be the final arbiter. They assumed that role themselves. And Jefferson and a number of other Founders had a fit.

It always amazes me how people can condescendingly remark on how difficult the Constitution is for regular people to understand, and then reveal that they themselves haven't even READ the sucker (aka Madeline).

 

[Cecilie1200]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

Actually the constitution has numerous parts that were put in under the assumption that the people COULD be stupid. You also have to remember that voter franchise was not universal at the time of the founding of our current government, most of them at the time were proponents of voter restrictions based on land, education, profession etc.

Such institutions as the senate, with its 6 year turnover cycle, the amendment process, and ths lifetime appointments to the supreme court were designed to prevent radical change from happening. Add in the electoral college and you create a buffer between "stupid" acts.

I understand people wanting and thinking that "ordinary" people can do everything just as well as experts, but that sadly isn't the case. A normal person can fight a fire but I would rather have a trained firefighter do it. Same with engineering. Any person could try to build a bridge, but I wouldnt want to cross one desgined by a baker.

There's a difference between knowing that people can ACT stupidly, and assuming that they can't understand English when they read it. And reading a document written in plain English ain't firefighting OR engineering. It doesn't require expert training, a college degree, or even licensing and certification to accomplish.

 

[Madeline]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

The problem isn't that we need the elite scholars to tell us what the Constitution says, which we can read perfectly well for ourselves. What we need the elite scholars for is to tell us all the dozens of ways the words can be parsed, twisted, and tortured in order to make it say completely different things than what any reasonably intelligent, literate American adult can read for himself. Let's face it. What average, everyday American would even know what an "emanation from the penumbra" WAS, let alone be able to find them in the Constitution without an Ivy League-educated Supreme Court Justice to tell him?

The penumbras you so despise include the Right to privacy, Cecille. I wouldn't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And not all SCOTUS decisions are that hard to read.

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

Quote by:
Judge Learned Hand
(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
Source:
in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)

 

[Cecilie1200]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

The problem isn't that we need the elite scholars to tell us what the Constitution says, which we can read perfectly well for ourselves. What we need the elite scholars for is to tell us all the dozens of ways the words can be parsed, twisted, and tortured in order to make it say completely different things than what any reasonably intelligent, literate American adult can read for himself. Let's face it. What average, everyday American would even know what an "emanation from the penumbra" WAS, let alone be able to find them in the Constitution without an Ivy League-educated Supreme Court Justice to tell him?

The penumbras you so despise include the Right to privacy, Cecille. I wouldn't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And not all SCOTUS decisions are that hard to read.

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

Quote by:
Judge Learned Hand
(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
Source:
in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)

You mistakenly think that the imaginary "universal right to privacy" is something I admire and treasure and desperately want to defend. As it happens, I think it's a ridiculous notion on the face of it, and only gets more ridiculous as one delves into the ways it's been applied.

By the way, I never said SCOTUS opinions were hard to read. I said Constitutional scholars - many of whom are on the Supreme Court - torture the English language beyond all recognition in order to claim that the Constitution says what they wish it did, instead of what it does.

 

[JScott]

This thread is case in point why we need the scholars.

 

[Madeline]

I think some USMB-ers are having "high power image need issues". SCOTUS decides what the constitution means. The End. Finito. None of us agrees with them each and every time, and that's to be expected; we cannot hold referendums on each new fact pattern. The US is a republic; we don't run the joint by town hall meetings and not each of our votes is weighted the same.

Some people's opinions just do count for more, especially those of the Gang of Nine.

 

[Papa Jack]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, " We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves." Are you suggesting we don't need a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of our laws? If that wasn't your meaning then disregard my following statement, but, if it was your intent, then one must note that the Constitution provides for our Highest Court to do just that.

Something else you said, and something I'd like to talk about, was "The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions." Now, you were not talking about a "stupid electorate" in the contest of what I'm going to bring up, but, as we all know, "Stupid Is As Stupid Does!"

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to our voting habits, all of us............. ALL OF US ..............., are indeed, very stupid!

By that, I mean, we seem incapable of doing the most basic thing in human development and learn from our past mistakes. Quite the contrary, we seem to insist on doubling down on those very mistakes.

For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.

But, then we had a series of politicians................ FROM BOTH PARTIES ............come along and tell us we could do better. We could do better if we changed the direction of where our tax dollars went away from the middle class and and toward the higher income brackets. We were told the government services we demanded need not be paid for. And we were told we would be better off if the tax codes were rewritten to more favor the better off among us.

I don't condemn us for failing for that snake oil pitch. After all, it really did sound good. What leads me to conclude we are truly a stupid nation is we can't seem to learn that it is not only a pipe dream, but also that it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. But, instead of changing toward something that might work, and has worked in the past, we stupidly insist on traveling that same road that, for the past 30 years, has taken us further and further from our "best of times."

 

[martybegan]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

Actually the constitution has numerous parts that were put in under the assumption that the people COULD be stupid. You also have to remember that voter franchise was not universal at the time of the founding of our current government, most of them at the time were proponents of voter restrictions based on land, education, profession etc.

Such institutions as the senate, with its 6 year turnover cycle, the amendment process, and ths lifetime appointments to the supreme court were designed to prevent radical change from happening. Add in the electoral college and you create a buffer between "stupid" acts.

I understand people wanting and thinking that "ordinary" people can do everything just as well as experts, but that sadly isn't the case. A normal person can fight a fire but I would rather have a trained firefighter do it. Same with engineering. Any person could try to build a bridge, but I wouldnt want to cross one desgined by a baker.

There's a difference between knowing that people can ACT stupidly, and assuming that they can't understand English when they read it. And reading a document written in plain English ain't firefighting OR engineering. It doesn't require expert training, a college degree, or even licensing and certification to accomplish.

But like every human endovor some people will chose to study it more then the aVERage bear. SOMEONE has to interpet it when disputes arise, and since lawyers have the best training when it comes to interpreting law it falls on them.

What other system would you propose? If you really want to get around the courts there is a process for it, the amendment process. You could make having the president quack like a duck for 1 hour a year made constitutional that way, and the courts, legislature and the executive could do squat about it.

A system where "ordinary" people would determine consitutional diasagreements reminds me of when the bolsheviks rounded up a peasant, a worker and a solider to be part of the negotiating team with the germans in 1917 just to satisfy thier ideology.

 

[Madeline]

Papa Jack wrote in part:

For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.

Ah, not so fast there Papa Jack. The ONLY people pining away for the '50's are white men. For women and people of color, the '50's were a nightmare; men who had fought in WW II came home to this:

I'm not anxious to return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life.

 

[Papa Jack]

Papa Jack wrote in part:

For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.

Ah, not so fast there Papa Jack. The ONLY people pining away for the '50's are white men. For women and people of color, the '50's were a nightmare; men who had fought in WW II came home to this:

I'm not anxious to return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life.

You're absolutely correct, Madeline. The era I talked about was anything but perfect, but it was far, far better than where we now find ourselves. With the governmental polices, tax polices, and the direction we funneled our tax revenues during those decades, we able to produce the greatest middle class the world has ever known. And out of that middle class growth, we were later able to take on social issues since as race.

Compare that era to the current times where we have a shrinking middle class, and are totally incapable of doing anything on our social issues of the day. For example, everyone........from the far left to the far right...........agrees we need a comprehensive immigration policy. However, both parties are completely inept of even staring debate on the issue.

Most importantly, I don't see how anyone would think that if we were ever able to change from our current national economic policy, and return to doing it similar to how it was done in the 50's and 60's, why that would mean we'd "return to an era where all women, all GLBT folks, all blacks, all Latinos, and all Jews were locked out of economic life."