Living Document or Not?

[Bern80]

if our constitution is so precious, how come it doesn't seem to be working out for anyone?

What?
1. it protects your right
2. I missed the part where it isn't working out for people.

my point is, everyone seems to have problems with it

~S~

Just because people don't like the document or what it may or may not allow does not mean it isn't a well constructed, easily understandable document. The fact that some don't like what it limits does not mean there is some problem with it. Hell, if you don't like it, it even gives you instructions on how to change it.

The problem is this whole living document thing. To me it's just an excuse. No one here can say that every law on the book or every program or every SCOTUS opinion comports with the constitution. Yet no one, by whom I mean congress, President and Supreme Court want to admit, that there are laws in place and opiniosn rendered that are not constittuional. Instead of doing so they say well it's a living document, or that's how we interpreted. Either make the case that everything currently in place is constittuional or that ignoring it is okay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, the document is what the SCOTUS says it is until an amendment or a ruling changes an interpretation.

That you disagree is your right, but you are not the "decider" of the issue: only SCOTUS can do that.

 

[ConHog]

What?
1. it protects your right
2. I missed the part where it isn't working out for people.

my point is, everyone seems to have problems with it

~S~

Just because people don't like the document or what it may or may not allow does not mean it isn't a well constructed, easily understandable document. The fact that some don't like what it limits does not mean there is some problem with it. Hell, if you don't like it, it even gives you instructions on how to change it.

The problem is this whole living document thing. To me it's just an excuse. No one here can say that every law on the book or every program or every SCOTUS opinion comports with the constitution. Yet no one, by whom I mean congress, President and Supreme Court want to admit, that there are laws in place and opiniosn rendered that are not constittuional. Instead of doing so they say well it's a living document, or that's how we interpreted. Either make the case that everything currently in place is constittuional or that ignoring it is okay.

The only way to determine if laws are constitutional is for an issue to be brought before the court in the form of a lawsuit. So if no one sues on the grounds that a law is unconstitutional, how would we get a ruling? Unless of course you are suggesting that the Court sit down with a copy of the legal code and render an opinion on every single law?

 

[Liability]

my point is, everyone seems to have problems with it

~S~

Just because people don't like the document or what it may or may not allow does not mean it isn't a well constructed, easily understandable document. The fact that some don't like what it limits does not mean there is some problem with it. Hell, if you don't like it, it even gives you instructions on how to change it.

The problem is this whole living document thing. To me it's just an excuse. No one here can say that every law on the book or every program or every SCOTUS opinion comports with the constitution. Yet no one, by whom I mean congress, President and Supreme Court want to admit, that there are laws in place and opiniosn rendered that are not constittuional. Instead of doing so they say well it's a living document, or that's how we interpreted. Either make the case that everything currently in place is constittuional or that ignoring it is okay.

The only way to determine if laws are constitutional is for an issue to be brought before the court in the form of a lawsuit. So if no one sues on the grounds that a law is unconstitutional, how would we get a ruling? Unless of course you are suggesting that the Court sit down with a copy of the legal code and render an opinion on every single law?

No. That's not the "only" way we can determine that a law is unconstitutional.

If Congress for some ridiculous reason passed a law that said no white person (or no black person, it really doesn't matter which one for this silly hypothetical) would be eligible to serve in the nation's armed services -- or would no longer be permitted to vote in Federal elections unless they brought property tax receipts -- it would be a good thing if the President made a determination articulated in his veto message that the act was unconstitutional. He can do that, you know.

Now say that the idiot Congress overrode the veto. Then the President might simply REFUSE to enforce that law or permit anybody in the Federal branch to give it ANY effect.

NOW we might have a court battle looming. The jerkoffs in Congress MIGHT sue to compel the President to enforce the law, but the President might get the Court to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the bill is Unconstitutional. The point is, that whole "go to the SCOTUS" thing is not the only way to determine that something is a violation of the Constitution.

Hell. For that matter, if the SCOTUS were to determine that the Congressional act DIDN'T violate the Constitution, does anybody REALLY think that the obviously and facially unconstitutional Act is somehow now made pure and wholesome and Constitutional?

 

[Liability]

Shut up, Liability. You are not a real true--blue Republican, you reactionary skank.

Eat shit, Jokey, you braying jackass' asshole.

First off, ya filthy moron, I am not a Republican.

Secondly, ass-licker, you don't even comprehend what a "reactionary" is. You use words with no clue as to their real world meaning, jism-guzzler.

Thirdly, your contention about what I am is meaningless since you are a complete and utter liar and a moron.

After you are done eating shit, nitwit, go home and hide under your bed for a month.
The real world scares you, ya degenerate *****.

 

[Bern80]

The only way to determine if laws are constitutional is for an issue to be brought before the court in the form of a lawsuit. So if no one sues on the grounds that a law is unconstitutional, how would we get a ruling? Unless of course you are suggesting that the Court sit down with a copy of the legal code and render an opinion on every single law?

Not suggesting we do that at all. Or at least I'm suggesting that the supreme court do that. Such a body that actually does that would not be a bad idea though. I think the overarching problem is that it just plain doesn't occur to politicians to find out if there brilliant idea (i.e. requiring people to purchase health insurance) is actually constitutinoally allowed. I believe there needs to be some step in the legislative process that requires bills to be checked for constitutionality.

 

[Oddball]

The Enumerated Powers Act never gets enough support to get out of committee.

Seems congressweasels actually like disregarding any limits to their power to to force people to do as they say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only way to determine if laws are constitutional is for an issue to be brought before the court in the form of a lawsuit. So if no one sues on the grounds that a law is unconstitutional, how would we get a ruling? Unless of course you are suggesting that the Court sit down with a copy of the legal code and render an opinion on every single law?

Not suggesting we do that at all. Or at least I'm suggesting that the supreme court do that. Such a body that actually does that would not be a bad idea though. I think the overarching problem is that it just plain doesn't occur to politicians to find out if there brilliant idea (i.e. requiring people to purchase health insurance) is actually constitutionally allowed. I believe there needs to be some step in the legislative process that requires bills to be checked for constitutionality.

The Republican Party of Utah killed the Constitutionality Committee attached to the Utah Legislature because the committee had kept telling the legislators that various laws (overwhelmingly Republican-led bills) violated either the Utah or the national constitution.

The fact is that the health insurance reform bill is constitutional until SCOTUS says it is not constitutional. And there are no actual constitutional grounds to challenge the bill.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, the document is what the SCOTUS says it is until an amendment or a ruling changes an interpretation.

That you disagree is your right, but you are not the "decider" of the issue: only SCOTUS can do that.

No, SCOUTS ruling on something does not determine whether something is constitutional. They don't get to re-write the document. They render an OPINION. Which, as you are so fond of reminding us, can be incorrect.

As liability stated if SCOTUS were to rule that some thing whatever, was constitutional, when beyond no reasonable doubt it is NOT constitutional that does not all of suddend make what is clearly not constitutional now constitutional. It means we have a problem with our justices adhering to the constitution. This is something that started long ago with FDR. Ever since we have fought over the appointees of various presidents under the belief that their politics of the president will be reflected in whom their nominee is. With Sotomayor for example and probably Kagan, that suspicion appears to be well founded. That being the case it is truly naive to believe that every ruling the court has made has interpreted the constiution correctly.

 

[Bern80]

The fact is that the health insurance reform bill is constitutional until SCOTUS says it is not constitutional. And there are no actual constitutional grounds to challenge the bill.

Oh weasel your arguments get more ridiculous all the time. By this argument congress can pass any law it likes, blatantly unconstitutional or not. I guess you also believe that the fed has the constitutional authority to require private purchases of people. Find that one for me in the constitution please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that the health insurance reform bill is constitutional until SCOTUS says it is not constitutional. And there are no actual constitutional grounds to challenge the bill.

Oh weasel your arguments get more ridiculous all the time. By this argument congress can pass any law it likes, blatantly unconstitutional or not. I guess you also believe that the fed has the constitutional authority to require private purchases of people. Find that one for me in the constitution please.

You are weaseling, Bern. SCOTUS determines constitutionality of a bill. You can have an opinion, but who cares what you think. You pay social security and medicare and medicaid taxes, I imagine, and, yes, you will either buy the insurance of have your taxes adjusted each year by the IRS.

Nothing unconstitutional with that at all.

You really need to move along with Liability and conhog and others. Nothing to see here, guys; move along now.

 

[Bern80]

The fact is that the health insurance reform bill is constitutional until SCOTUS says it is not constitutional. And there are no actual constitutional grounds to challenge the bill.

Oh weasel your arguments get more ridiculous all the time. By this argument congress can pass any law it likes, blatantly unconstitutional or not. I guess you also believe that the fed has the constitutional authority to require private purchases of people. Find that one for me in the constitution please.

You are weaseling, Bern. SCOTUS determines constitutionality of a bill. You can have an opinion, but who cares what you think. You pay social security and medicare and medicaid taxes, I imagine, and, yes, you will either buy the insurance of have your taxes adjusted each year by the IRS.

Nothing unconstitutional with that at all.

You really need to move along with Liability and conhog and others. Nothing to see here, guys; move along now.

You remain the weasel, weasel. You can not admit to the reality of your position.

YOU are making the affirmative statement. YOU back it up. You are asserting that those things ARE constitutional. Grow a shred of integrity for once and show YOUR evidence that they are. If it is so simple to see these things as constitutional, then it should not be hard for even an idiot such as yourself to cite what part of the costitution would allow government to require people to make private purchases.

 

[Yurt]

Yes, do scamper off, Jake the Fake.

Hell, I'll debate your ass any day of the week...Let's pick a topic!

I gave you two to pick from last month and you ran away. So you pick out several.

so says the liar that ran from my repeated challenges to debate....

you have no credibility, zero.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But since you made no evidence for your affirmation, I will simply state that SCOTUS the ruling must supply, and then, little weasel, you must comply.

 

[stable31]

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Lysander Spooner

 

[Tech_Esq]

The fact is that the health insurance reform bill is constitutional until SCOTUS says it is not constitutional. And there are no actual constitutional grounds to challenge the bill.

That is an incorrect statement. Any Federal Court can rule a statue unconstitutional. If the government fails to appeal it, that ruling will stand and there it will end. There may be tactical reasons for the government not to want to appeal it too. If there are obvious defects, it may be best to cure, before the Supremes have a chance to rule. Easier to overturn a Federal District Judge than the SCOTUS.

Second, you are apparently completely mistaken about the Heath care law. It's a law after it's passed and signed, not a bill. The Federal District Court disagrees with you that there are no Constitutional challenges to make. The judge says that the federal government has NEVER sought to stretch its taxing power and its Commerce clause powers to this extent, that it is far afield from settled authority for the government.

He said this as he denied the Obama Administration's motion to strike on 4 different theories. We'll see about Constitutionality when he rules on the Request for Summary Judgment by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nice analysis, Tech. Plaintiff went judge shopping, which certainly is its right. I doubt that you will be able to get most constitutional scholars to agree with those who oppose the bill. Should the court find a technicality with the bill that is troublesome, the Congress will merely remedy it. Health insurance reform is here to stay.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nice analysis, Tech. Plaintiff went judge shopping, which certainly is its right. I doubt that you will be able to get most constitutional scholars to agree with those who oppose the bill. Should the court find a technicality with the bill that is troublesome, the Congress will merely remedy it. Health insurance reform is here to stay.

Not too sure about your comment that Atty Gen. Cuccinelli went judge shopping. Do you have some evidence of that. He did get a federal district judge in Richmond which is where the state capital is. It's not like he filed it in the Eastern District of Virginia (the Rocket Docket). So, if you have some link to where he "found a better judge" I'd like to take a look at it.

Further, the judge is an alum of my law school, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, so I'd hardly say he was out of the mainstream. One thing you might not have heard about though, Atty General Cuccinelli mentioned this morning, in the 2200 pages of the bill, somehow the Democrats forgot to put in a severability clause. That means that unlike the AZ bill where each part had to be parsed and some pieces survived while others were subject to the TRO, if any part of the health care law is ruled unconstitutional, IT ALL GOES!

Then the Administration will have to start over with a Republican House of Representatives. If it was hard before, what will it be then?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, the severability clause is easily remedied, and you know it. But first your side has got to get there, and the chances are very, very dim. I will let you look up the judge's background and rulings. Since you made the affirmative claims, I will let you provide the evidence before I respond it to it. Remember? Affirmation has post first, with evidence.

 

[Yurt]

Nah, the severability clause is easily remedied, and you know it. But first your side has got to get there, and the chances are very, very dim. I will let you look up the judge's background and rulings. Since you made the affirmative claims, I will let you provide the evidence before I respond it to it. Remember? Affirmation has post first, with evidence.

ooops....jake admits he is a liberal

and pray tell how is the clause easily remedied? you can't go back and add it...