If you were forced to choose...

[DiamondDave]

Is there a right of privacy in the Constitution?

Specifically no... This was deemed by the SC in judicial review and only subsequently granted by interpretation... which is not a charged power of the SC...

Now.. this is not saying that I do not thing there should or should not be a right to privacy in the constitution... rather that it is not specifically in there

So in order to accept YOUR conditions for how to apply the Constitution, everyone would have to concede that they currently have no protected privacy rights, and at this time,

would have no legal recourse to contest an invasion of their privacy by anyone or any entity.

Are you beginning to see the absurdity of your position?

It is not an absurd position... we do not have a right to absolute privacy.. you are not a country of 1

 

[DiamondDave]

Operating under the Constitution STRICTLY as written would mean the President isn't Commander in Chief of the Air Force.

If by title?? There is no mention of air force.. though specific mention of armies and navy... should there have probably been an amendment to add by name the Marines and Air Force (even though they started as part of the Navy and Army)?? Probably... With strict interpretation of the law...

So you believe the President is NOT, Constitutionally, Commander in Chief of the Air Force?

The Marines, while not a sub-branch of the Navy itself, are part of the Department of the Navy - so we get into gray area - and strict contructionists fucking hate gray.

Is it really gray??

As I said, would I have said it should have been amended when it became its own branch?? Yes... But it did start as part of the Army... and it should not have become a separate branch without going thru the amendment process... so you might actually say that it is unconstitutional that it is its own branch, that it is still part of the Army, and hence still under command of the CiC

 

[Politico]

It is indeed a simple question...

It sure is. Humans run amok without some kind of thumb on them. Modern day gimme gimme Americans are even worse. Just look around here. The only thing that keeps everyone under any semblance of control is the ban button hanging over your heads.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If by title?? There is no mention of air force.. though specific mention of armies and navy... should there have probably been an amendment to add by name the Marines and Air Force (even though they started as part of the Navy and Army)?? Probably... With strict interpretation of the law...

So you believe the President is NOT, Constitutionally, Commander in Chief of the Air Force?

The Marines, while not a sub-branch of the Navy itself, are part of the Department of the Navy - so we get into gray area - and strict contructionists fucking hate gray.

Is it really gray??

As I said, would I have said it should have been amended when it became its own branch?? Yes... But it did start as part of the Army... and it should not have become a separate branch without going thru the amendment process... so you might actually say that it is unconstitutional that it is its own branch, that it is still part of the Army, and hence still under command of the CiC

Its an illegal branch of the military service under the command of the Commander-in-Chief - yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Wow 21-0 so far....

My hockey team played a Chinese team and we beat them 21-0. Hell I was the goalie and even scored a goal - I got bored sitting there with my thumb up my ass so I skated to the blue line and took part in some offensive action......

It was funny....

 

[8537]

That power is not a granted power... it was not left up to interpretation

It was indeed assumed, or it would have been added to the constitution via amendment

Again.. not like I disagree with judicial review.. I do not think it is great as we have it because the limitations are not strictly laid out, nor is the specific power... I am simply saying that power is not actually granted to the SC by the constitution.. .it is one that was grabbed otherwise against the constitution

Again, who do you believe the founders thought should decide which laws were in pursuance of the constitutions (constitutional) and which were not (unconstitutional)?

Or do you believe they had no opinion or thought on the matter?

And if you believe it was grabbed against the Constitution, you also must believe the constitution granted said power somewhere from whence it was grabbed. Where?

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

 

[DiamondDave]

Again, who do you believe the founders thought should decide which laws were in pursuance of the constitutions (constitutional) and which were not (unconstitutional)?

Or do you believe they had no opinion or thought on the matter?

And if you believe it was grabbed against the Constitution, you also must believe the constitution granted said power somewhere from whence it was grabbed. Where?

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

It has not been dodged.. you just do not like the answer that it is not a power granted...

Whether you think it is a power or a job that should be there, or whether it is one that exists because the power was grabbed, is irrelevant.. It is not a constitutionally granted power

 

[8537]

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

It has not been dodged.. you just do not like the answer that it is not a power granted...

So if it was not granted, where does the power lie? And btw, why didn't the founders object? If you can just answer that question finally perhaps we can move on....

 

[DiamondDave]

So you believe the President is NOT, Constitutionally, Commander in Chief of the Air Force?

The Marines, while not a sub-branch of the Navy itself, are part of the Department of the Navy - so we get into gray area - and strict contructionists fucking hate gray.

Is it really gray??

As I said, would I have said it should have been amended when it became its own branch?? Yes... But it did start as part of the Army... and it should not have become a separate branch without going thru the amendment process... so you might actually say that it is unconstitutional that it is its own branch, that it is still part of the Army, and hence still under command of the CiC

Its an illegal branch of the military service under the command of the Commander-in-Chief - yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense.

Not an illegal branch.. one that was improperly branched off (and not accounted for in the constitution) and should then be still (or is still) under the realm of the Army... if you want to get technical

 

[DiamondDave]

So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

It has not been dodged.. you just do not like the answer that it is not a power granted...

So if it was not granted, where does the power lie? And btw, why didn't the founders object? If you can just answer that question finally perhaps we can move on....

You assume it is a power... it is not a constitutionally granted power, so it does not lie anywhere.. whether you think it should lie somewhere is a different discussion

Because even back then, people were seeing the opportunities to grab power and what the grab of that power meant... and while you did have people opposed, those that assumed the power without constitutional muster already started to wield it in their own defense.. because even a perceived or a wrongfully gained power has influence

 

[8537]

It has not been dodged.. you just do not like the answer that it is not a power granted...

So if it was not granted, where does the power lie? And btw, why didn't the founders object? If you can just answer that question finally perhaps we can move on....

You assume it is a power... it is not a constitutionally granted power, so it does not lie anywhere.. whether you think it should lie somewhere is a different discussion

Because even back then, people were seeing the opportunities to grab power and what the grab of that power meant... and while you did have people opposed, those that assumed the power without constitutional muster already started to wield it in their own defense.. because even a perceived or a wrongfully gained power has influence

So you think the founders had no one in mind to fulfill that role? With all their wisdom, it didn't occur to them that someone would need to be responsible for deciding which laws were in pursuance of the Constitution?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Again, who do you believe the founders thought should decide which laws were in pursuance of the constitutions (constitutional) and which were not (unconstitutional)?

Or do you believe they had no opinion or thought on the matter?

And if you believe it was grabbed against the Constitution, you also must believe the constitution granted said power somewhere from whence it was grabbed. Where?

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

The president ultimately is but at the same time the congress can override the president.

This is NOT a dictatorship - this is a democracy...

Progressives believe this is a dictatorship - and want it to be such...

 

[8537]

Opinion does not matter... only if there is or is not a specific power granted

The constitution was granted its power from the states specifically

So one more time - an actual answer will suffice:

Who is empowered with the final decision about which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? You've dodged the question about 8 times now.

The president ultimately is but at the same time the congress can override the president.

This is NOT a dictatorship - this is a democracy...

Progressives believe this is a dictatorship - and want it to be such...

The President is empowered to interpret laws and decide which ones are in pursuance of the Constitution? Where does your copy of the Constitution grant him that power?

This is an utterly new and interesting interpretation, comrade!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If DiamondDave were forced to choose between a brain fart and an original thought, he would become a USMB Moderator With Super Powers

 

[Unkotare]

Wow 21-0 so far....

My hockey team played a Chinese team and we beat them 21-0. Hell I was the goalie and even scored a goal - I got bored sitting there with my thumb up my ass so I skated to the blue line and took part in some offensive action......

It was funny....

Little nicky badass strikes again!

 

[DiamondDave]

So if it was not granted, where does the power lie? And btw, why didn't the founders object? If you can just answer that question finally perhaps we can move on....

You assume it is a power... it is not a constitutionally granted power, so it does not lie anywhere.. whether you think it should lie somewhere is a different discussion

Because even back then, people were seeing the opportunities to grab power and what the grab of that power meant... and while you did have people opposed, those that assumed the power without constitutional muster already started to wield it in their own defense.. because even a perceived or a wrongfully gained power has influence

So you think the founders had no one in mind to fulfill that role? With all their wisdom, it didn't occur to them that someone would need to be responsible for deciding which laws were in pursuance of the Constitution?

They knew that there would be mistakes, unforeseen things, which is why they included the amendment process..

But quite frankly, the power was not granted and even though the power was taken and put in to use (again, rightfully or wrongfully is another argument) it was never made constitutional, hence an ill-gained power

 

[8537]

You assume it is a power... it is not a constitutionally granted power, so it does not lie anywhere.. whether you think it should lie somewhere is a different discussion

Because even back then, people were seeing the opportunities to grab power and what the grab of that power meant... and while you did have people opposed, those that assumed the power without constitutional muster already started to wield it in their own defense.. because even a perceived or a wrongfully gained power has influence

So you think the founders had no one in mind to fulfill that role? With all their wisdom, it didn't occur to them that someone would need to be responsible for deciding which laws were in pursuance of the Constitution?

They knew that there would be mistakes, unforeseen things, which is why they included the amendment process..

But quite frankly, the power was not granted and even though the power was taken and put in to use (again, rightfully or wrongfully is another argument) it was never made constitutional, hence an ill-gained power

I'm trying to make sure I understand this correctly. You would agree that when the Constitution refers to "judicial power", that is the power to interpret laws and the Constitution, correct? Otherwise, what role would that power vest?

Now the constitution states "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court.." it goes on to say

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

So the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with judicial power, grants it appellate jurisdiction, but did not expect it to use said judicial power and final jurisdiction to settle matters of Constitutionality brought before it?

 

[DiamondDave]

Correct.. because the constitution is written to be strict and limiting... the power would have to strictly be granted, else via the 10th Amendment, goes out of the hands of the federal government

 

[8537]

Correct.. because the constitution is written to be strict and limiting... the power would have to strictly be granted, else via the 10th Amendment, goes out of the hands of the federal government

It IS strictly granted - right here:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court...The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,

 

[jillian]

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

why would you limit it to those two options. the constitution was never intended to be a "literal" document.

what does "due process" mean absent caselaw?
what does "equal protection" mean absent caselaw?

your poll, though i see what you're getting at, is a false choice.