I've heard it on here so much enough is enough

[NYcarbineer]

I guess our disagreement is on the meaning of the word "interpret". Deciding if a law or ruling of a lower court is constitutional does not require 'interpreting' the constitution. Either the law or ruling is in accordance with the constitution or its not.

Trying to decide what the drafters of the constitution would have done today is not the role of the SCOTUS. To do that is the equivalent of making law from the bench.

Neither is wearing an 18th century hat to make a decision

Neither is making decisions based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law.

Then how do you know that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press doesn't protect the publication and distribution of child pornography?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Neither is wearing an 18th century hat to make a decision

Neither is making decisions based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law.

You don’t understand.

The fundamental jurisprudence and Anglo-American judicial tradition concerning the doctrines of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts predate the Constitution; the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, forged in the crucible of the rule of law, dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II.

The genius of the Founding Generation, therefore, was to conjoin English Common Law and a governing political framework that is the US Constitution. Our Constitution brilliantly seeks to strike a balance between the individual rights of men and the authority of the state to govern in accordance with the rule of law at the behest of the American people. Hence the Framers sought to create a Republic, not a democracy, where the people are governed solely by the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Not only did the Framers expect the courts to interpret the Constitution in the context of judicial review, but they depended upon it as a vital component of sound and responsible governance performed by the Judicial Branch, pursuant to Separation of Powers Doctrine at the heart of safeguarding our civil liberties.

Consequently we see the notion that the Constitution “does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone” is meaningless nonsense, as it was the original intent of the Framers that the Constitution indeed be interpreted as the courts review the constitutionality of laws.

Last, all perceptions of the Constitution manifest an interpretation – no matter how ‘litteralist,’ ‘originalist,’ ‘strict-constructionist,’ or ‘constitutionalist’ that perception might be; no political party, ideology, doctrine, or dogma possesses a ‘monopoly’ on the ‘true meaning’ of the Constitution, to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy. This is why it is a fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the courts, in accordance with the intent of the Framers.

Interesting. "All perceptions of the Constitution manifest in an interpretation." Of course. You happen to think the constitution should be interpreted in a way other than it was originally written. Normally when you read any part of the constitution, it means one thing, not two or ten. The first Amendment means free speech. Second means freedom to bear arms and so on.

The founders DID NOT intend for the Constitution to be bent and twisted by 'interpretation' or 'perception.'

 

[Redfish]

Neither is wearing an 18th century hat to make a decision

Neither is making decisions based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law.

Then how do you know that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press doesn't protect the publication and distribution of child pornography?

technically it does. I think most pornography laws are state and local, not federal.

 

[daveman]

18th century liberals had 18th century needs. We were a third world country that was dispersed over thousands of miles. We were deeply in debt and incapable of affording even the most basic government services.
Equating an 18th century agrarian society to a 21st century economic superpower is idiotic

Good thing I'm not doing that, huh?

Afraid you are

You are claiming that the government that the founders set up for an 18th century, third world America is what they would have wanted for today

I don't think our founders were that stupid, do you?

The government they established with the Constitution would work fine today.

But too many people have been ignoring the simple document for too long.

 

[daveman]

So when JFK was trying to get Medicare passed, was he acting for the nation or just to create what you call more government bureaucrats?

He did what he thought best for the nation.

But then, he wasn't a progressive, either.

He was increasing the role of government in people's lives: yes, he was a progressive.

Yes, progressives make that claim.

 

[daveman]

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

Yes, it is. But your interpretation of it is wrong.

The left sees what they want to see, even in a clear, concise document.

 

[daveman]

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

If you didn't have a Supreme Court to decide what the 2nd amendment means, how would you decide what the 2nd amendment means.

I can read and think for myself.

Can you? Or do you need others to explain things to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

If you didn't have a Supreme Court to decide what the 2nd amendment means, how would you decide what the 2nd amendment means.

I can read and think for myself.

Can you? Or do you need others to explain things to you?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Neither is making decisions based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law.

Then how do you know that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press doesn't protect the publication and distribution of child pornography?

technically it does. I think most pornography laws are state and local, not federal.

But a state or local law cannot violate the Constitution. So if the Constitution's first amendment protects the publication and distribution of child pornography,

that makes all laws against that unconstitutional, according to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many here agree with Redfish that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

 

[NYcarbineer]

redfish posted:
"the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law."

Ron sez:
Has the Supreme Court received the memo on this? I don't think so. If the Constitution is so "clear and concise" why was a SC created in the first place? If I recall correctly it is their job to interprete the Constitution.

You find as an amazing coincidence that for rightwingers, not only is the Constitution clear and concise,

but it just happens to agree with the rightwing agenda in every instance,

and where the Supreme Court makes rulings the right wing doesn't agree with, it's also an amazing coincidence that that only happens when the Supreme Court makes a mistake!!!

How convenient, eh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you didn't have a Supreme Court to decide what the 2nd amendment means, how would you decide what the 2nd amendment means.

I can read and think for myself.

Can you? Or do you need others to explain things to you?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Yeah sure, the city. People can practice concealed carry in the state of Illinois now. As far as my interpretation of the law goes, state law trumps municipal law. Chicago is now breaking the law by banning handguns within its confines.

General Assembly overrides governor's veto of concealed carry bill - Chicago Tribune

Secondly, if you want legal precedent, just read the Heller case. The Supreme Court would have all it needed to reverse the statute. If you want to know how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment, again, read the Heller case.

 

[daveman]

If you didn't have a Supreme Court to decide what the 2nd amendment means, how would you decide what the 2nd amendment means.

I can read and think for myself.

Can you? Or do you need others to explain things to you?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

The city of Chicago banned handguns because the liberals running the place ignored the Constitution.

Thanks for proving my point about the left seeing only what they want to see.

 

[Redfish]

How many here agree with Redfish that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

thats not what I said, asshole.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then how do you know that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press doesn't protect the publication and distribution of child pornography?

technically it does. I think most pornography laws are state and local, not federal.

But a state or local law cannot violate the Constitution. So if the Constitution's first amendment protects the publication and distribution of child pornography,

that makes all laws against that unconstitutional, according to you.

What planet do you live on? State and Local laws can violate the Constitution. Because they are enforced by local and state government, the rules pertaining to government in the Constitution apply there as well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

redfish posted:
"the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law."

Ron sez:
Has the Supreme Court received the memo on this? I don't think so. If the Constitution is so "clear and concise" why was a SC created in the first place? If I recall correctly it is their job to interprete the Constitution.

You find as an amazing coincidence that for rightwingers, not only is the Constitution clear and concise,

but it just happens to agree with the rightwing agenda in every instance,

and where the Supreme Court makes rulings the right wing doesn't agree with, it's also an amazing coincidence that that only happens when the Supreme Court makes a mistake!!!

How convenient, eh?

I wonder how much of a fit you were throwing when the SCOTUS stuck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act? Oh yeah, you were (maybe not you in particular) saying "oh that's a mistake, black people won't be able to vote!"

If the SCOTUS makes a ruling that neither side approves of, the same behavior will ensue.

Really, Carbine, stop. You're melting into a puddle of goo as we speak. You cannot for the life of you contemplate a rational, objective argument.

 

[Warrior102]

There are a couple examples that I could give as to what you're looking for...

Go ahead, asswipe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Eighteenth century liberals would see you far leftist "21st century" liberals as the lunatic fringe. If they saw who was president, they would no doubt compare him to the King of England. A tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what century you come from.

What would they make of the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security? What would they make of the Patriot Act? What would they make of the suspension of habaes corpus for detainees, including US citizens? What would they make of waterboarding? What would they make of Medicare D? What would they make of the War in Iraq? What would they make of warrantless wiretaps? What would they make of domestic spying on tens of millions of Americans? What would they make of National Security Letters and the thousands of abuses of those NSLs?

What would they make of the President who was on watch when all this went down? What would they make of the flag pin wearing yahoos cheering him on as he did all this?

Obama may be tyrant, but he was handed the baton. It amuses me all the yahoos didn't discover the Constitution or our Founders until January 20, 2009.

I'd love to speculate with you about this, that and the other thing, but no. Bush this, Bush that. We're talking about Liberals, not Conservatives. The goalposts stay right where they are, thanks.

Obama is a tyrant in his own league by himself. If you recall, even Democrats voted for the Patriot Act.

Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

No party--no president can be held blameless for these transgressions against freedom. Obama voted for the reauthorization act in 2006.

Next!

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The Founders wanted the American people of the 21st century to have the government the American people of the 21st century want.

Which means that if the Founders were around today, the last thing they'd be doing would be slavishly worshipping their own centuries-old ghosts.

They'd probably be wondering why they bothered to overthrow British rule.

They wouldn't recognize the current British government either

Imagine that? Times change
Who'da thunk it?

Man, you sure do love your vapid irrelevancies, don't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

redfish posted:
"the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law."

Ron sez:
Has the Supreme Court received the memo on this? I don't think so. If the Constitution is so "clear and concise" why was a SC created in the first place? If I recall correctly it is their job to interprete the Constitution.

You find as an amazing coincidence that for rightwingers, not only is the Constitution clear and concise,

but it just happens to agree with the rightwing agenda in every instance,

and where the Supreme Court makes rulings the right wing doesn't agree with, it's also an amazing coincidence that that only happens when the Supreme Court makes a mistake!!!

How convenient, eh?

I wonder how much of a fit you were throwing when the SCOTUS stuck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act? Oh yeah, you were (maybe not you in particular) saying "oh that's a mistake, black people won't be able to vote!"

If the SCOTUS makes a ruling that neither side approves of, the same behavior will ensue.

Really, Carbine, stop. You're melting into a puddle of goo as we speak. You cannot for the life of you contemplate a rational, objective argument.

Feel free to name the Supreme Court decisions that there is a consensus on the Right that the decision was constitutionally correct,

but the Right doesn't like the decision.