Silenced on the Day of Silence

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Moi
New Guy,

I've been a constitutional scholar for 20 odd of my 40 years on this earth. I live, eat and sleep it.

I disagree that there are no relevant areas where the constitution requires interpretation. The cases cited by Reilly are but a few.

I can't see that at all. When taken in context, there seems nothing vague. Every "vague" point has a frame of reference to how it is to be handled under the circumstances when taken in context with the entire document. I have yet to see anyone logically point to a vagueness INCLUDING the ones supposedly posted where the frame of reference was not there.

Now, do I think that the Supreme Court is the only entity so charged? No, I think it's up to the entire judicial system to decide what's constitutional.

Where does it say that?

Do I think the Supreme Court has erred in stating what is and is not protected by the constutition? Yes.

We agree. Back to the impeachment clause.

However, it's more than a bit disingenuous to declare that the judiciary is not authorized to interpret the constutition for that is exactly what they do. They explain the meaning of or present in understandable terms.

Then, if your point is to have weight, please enlighten me by proving me wrong. One of us has to be wrong in this case and I can point to references showing how things are supposed to be taken in context. If I am wrong, then so be it, but I have yet to see anyone prove it without simply referencing wording out of context.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
1. No, that is like saying you have to have a body of people interpreting rule books in football and baseball. There are not. Thare are referees to declaire what they see, not for "interpretation" of how rules will be applied. That would disintegrate integrity of the game due to lack of original intent or consistency.

2. Prove 1 place where the Constitution claims a body must exist, and who they are.

There is no possibility of contradictory lesser rules in sports that defy a Supreme Rule. There is only one rulebook and no sub-rules that could conflict. Hence, there is little need for interpretation among rules. If there is no body that can say definitively that a law violates the Constitution, then there is no body to prevent government from running roughshod over the Constitution itself. How can the Court rule that State laws can't prevent people from voting when they have no authority to rule the State law unconstitutional?

Further, because the Constitution is vague (see my previous examples and below) while generally football rules are not, there is a greater need for interpretation of the Constitution.

Originally posted by NewGuy
Really? Lets see:



That is the entire article 3. Nowhere there does there include anything giving them the power to declaire any Constitutionality of ANYTHING. In fact, the bold part above PROVES they have no authority even EQUALING or SURPASSING the Constitution.

Unless you can point out the contrary, you have just fictionally created your own imaginary constitution.

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." and
"The judicial Power shall extend to ALL CASES, in Law and Equity, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION"

No one is saying Article III provides the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The power to declare laws unconstitutional is implicit in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, government could pass laws that stand in contradiction to the Constitution and no court would be able to do anything about it. In fact, government bodies pass laws that are unconstitutional all the time, and it is the courts that ferret these out and rule them invalid. Of course, in the process of comparing the Constitution and lesser laws, courts must determine what exactly the Constitution means.

Article III just rests the powers implicit in the Constitution with the courts, which have judicial responsibility. In fact, until the 14th Amendment, the federal courts weren't even allowed to invalidate State laws that contradicted the Constitution. This amendment stated that the Constitutional safeguards are also extended to citizens of the States against State governments.

Originally posted by NewGuy

What are you talking about? Read the impeachment clauses.

I said more immune, not completely immune.

Originally posted by NewGuy
What? What are you getting at? How does that EVEN BECOME AN ISSUE when that is an impossibility? You just tried to reverse the tables and proved my point. You don't punish the result of free speech, you only punish for a crime that was comitted as a result of the speech. Since when is a vote a crime, or a peaceful demonstration a crime?

"You don't punish the result of free speech, you only punish for a crime that was committed as a result of the speech." That is fine line. It makes me feel much safer regarding my Constitutional liberties.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that incitement of a peaceful demonstration can't be a crime. It is generally up to the States to define what crimes are. The only reason that incitement of a peaceful demonstration is not a crime is because the Supreme Court has determined that such prosecutions would infringe First Amendment rights. Of course, under your interpretation of the First Amendment, only the right to speak the words is protected, and it is up to non-judicial government bodies to determine whether the results of the speech fall within the definition of a crime. Don't you see how dangerous that is?

Originally posted by NewGuy

Again, no, they would not. Read the ammendment. NO LAW CAN AFFECT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Prosecuting someone for yelling "Fire" in a movie theater affects their right to yell "Fire." Their right to yell "Fire" is chilled by the knowledge that they face prosecution, just as the threat of prosecution would chill many types of speech. So should the prosecution be forbidden because it violates the First Amendment.

Originally posted by NewGuy

That is what I said. The only prosecution allowable is for intent by obvious result: IE trampling of people: Attempted manslaughter.

That is what you say are the only prosecutions allowable, but what if a State legislature, or the dominant party in the government were to disagree? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that prosecution is only allowable for inent of an obvious result. The Constitution is not that explicit. There are many laws on the books right now that include crimes that do not have intent requirements. What happens when the government passes a law outlawing persons from inciting peaceful demonstrations against the dominant party (with the intent to have the demonstration and the obvious result being that the demonstration occured)? Does the law only protect the words but not provide a defense against such a prosecution.

Originally posted by NewGuy

Since you have a problem with context, read the thread and then give me what you dont understand 1 point at a time, and I will go through it like I did in the other thread. I don't think it does the board justice to be so blatantly obvious and redundant because you don't want to read the thread.

I read the thread. There was nothing of interest in it. It didn't tell me whether the right to a speedy trial means that you are entitled to a trial within a week, 1 month, six months or a year. It didn't tell me whether the electric chair, torture, or lifetime incarceration are "cruel and unusual punishments." It also didn't tell me if the Framers mean unusual by their standards or the standards of the day. It didn't tell me whether $10M is an excessive bail or not. You talk about context, but I just read these amendments, and nothing in them anwered these questions.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Then, if your point is to have weight, please enlighten me by proving me wrong. One of us has to be wrong in this case and I can point to references showing how things are supposed to be taken in context. If I am wrong, then so be it, but I have yet to see anyone prove it without simply referencing wording out of context.

By looking at individual passages of the Constitution and then deducing their meaning through contextual analysis, you are interpreting the Constitution (through internal examination). Others may see the context differently and interpret it another way. Others still will see no context that is useful for interpretation and look to outside sources for interpretation (i.e, other writings and statements by the Constitutional authors, arguments in the record regarding the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments.

 

[Reilly]

I have to jet, but it has been fun. I will read any responses later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks.

 

[NewGuy]

There is no possibility of contradictory lesser rules in sports that defy a Supreme Rule. There is only one rulebook and no sub-rules that could conflict. Hence, there is little need for interpretation among rules.

Also, as you have just shown, supreme is supreme.

If there is no body that can say definitively that a law violates the Constitution, then there is no body to prevent government from running roughshod over the Constitution itself.

That is a completely rediculous statement. There is no body in any power to DO such a thing. The citizens have the power to over ride any law convicting any person. An impeachment process exists to boot out corrupt officials. Freedom to bear arms exists as a last resort.

On top of all this, the ONLY power granted in the entire document that has any function CLOSE to having power to affect the Constitution is the power to ammend it, but STILL the ammendments must be in compliance contextually.

It is when these facts are IGNORED by the populace over a period of time, as has happened over generations, government is allowed to become more corrupt.

How can the Court rule that State laws can't prevent people from voting when they have no authority to rule the State law unconstitutional?

That is another rediculous statement when the Constitution clearly states that people have a voting process. I don't know what you think you are proving, but it isn't working.

Further, because the Constitution is vague (see my previous examples and below) while generally football rules are not, there is a greater need for interpretation of the Constitution.

1. if this were really true, you could prove it.
2. if there WERE a need, since when does that make it right to violate the highest law in the land?

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." and
"The judicial Power shall extend to ALL CASES, in Law and Equity, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION"

No one is saying Article III provides the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The power to declare laws unconstitutional is implicit in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, government could pass laws that stand in contradiction to the Constitution and no court would be able to do anything about it. In fact, government bodies pass laws that are unconstitutional all the time, and it is the courts that ferret these out and rule them invalid. Of course, in the process of comparing the Constitution and lesser laws, courts must determine what exactly the Constitution means.

Once again, you have contradicted yourself.
In addition, look at the word "UNDER", look at the word in that paragraph. It occurs more than 3 times for different groups and clearly the word means beneath or referencing lower level than the subject. Look in the paragraph at the other terms like "between" and pharses such as "to all cases" and "to controversies between". This is not interpretation I am doing, but pointint out literal definition of contextual language used. Again, you are clearly wrong stating any court has any power in the capacity you claim it.

Article III just rests the powers implicit in the Constitution with the courts, which have judicial responsibility.

That is a false presumption with zero foundation as proven above.

In fact, until the 14th Amendment, the federal courts weren't even allowed to invalidate State laws that contradicted the Constitution. This amendment stated that the Constitutional safeguards are also extended to citizens of the States against State governments.

The 14th is unconstitutional and your last statement there is completely redundant since the following exists:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

AND:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"You don't punish the result of free speech, you only punish for a crime that was committed as a result of the speech." That is fine line. It makes me feel much safer regarding my Constitutional liberties.

No. It is NOT a fine line, as I pointed out. It requires a level of personal responsibility on the part of the citizen. If you want a parent for a government, you are in the wrong nation.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that incitement of a peaceful demonstration can't be a crime. It is generally up to the States to define what crimes are. The only reason that incitement of a peaceful demonstration is not a crime is because the Supreme Court has determined that such prosecutions would infringe First Amendment rights.

1. So, if there is a "good" than the "bad" is excusable?
2. I don't care WHAT the supreme court says about the Constitution, they have no authority to claim anything about it.

Of course, under your interpretation of the First Amendment, only the right to speak the words is protected, and it is up to non-judicial government bodies to determine whether the results of the speech fall within the definition of a crime. Don't you see how dangerous that is?

Yep. ABSOLUTELY FATAL, -- IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

Prosecuting someone for yelling "Fire" in a movie theater affects their right to yell "Fire." Their right to yell "Fire" is chilled by the knowledge that they face prosecution, just as the threat of prosecution would chill many types of speech. So should the prosecution be forbidden because it violates the First Amendment.

Holy Cow! Personal responsibility in your actions?
If there was a prosecution, it would be allowed because your peers would KNOW YOUR INTENT. The right to a trial by jury of peers is the balance of power here as there is a balance everywhere in the document.

That is what you say are the only prosecutions allowable, but what if a State legislature, or the dominant party in the government were to disagree? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that prosecution is only allowable for inent of an obvious result.

I said that the manslaughter charge was the crime, not the intent. The intent gets judged and causes either the conviction or the innocence.

The Constitution is not that explicit. There are many laws on the books right now that include crimes that do not have intent requirements. What happens when the government passes a law outlawing persons from inciting peaceful demonstrations against the dominant party (with the intent to have the demonstration and the obvious result being that the demonstration occured)? Does the law only protect the words but not provide a defense against such a prosecution.

How many times do I need to point out the jury?

I read the thread. There was nothing of interest in it.

This tells me you don't pay attention and do not care about your Constitution enough to be correct in its application. I am sure veterans including our founders would love to know that.

It didn't tell me whether the right to a speedy trial means that you are entitled to a trial within a week, 1 month, six months or a year.

Actually, according to Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856 which was supposed to be the corresponding and superceding, not to mention legally official law dictionary of original intent of Constitutional wording, the following is said about this:

"GAOL-DELIVERY, Eng. law. To insure the trial, within a certain time, of all prisoners, a patent in the nature of a letter is issued from the king to certain persons, appointing them his justices, and authorizing them to deliver his goals. Cromp. Jurisd. 125; 4 Inst. 168; 4 Bl. Com. 269; 2 Hale, P. C. 22, 32; 2 Hawk. P. C. 14, 28. In the United States, the judges of the criminal courts are required to cause the accused to be tried within the times prescribed by the local statutes, and the constitutions rcqpire a speedy trial."

In other words, the origin of the statement was from English law in which the idea is that time is directly dictated by local statutes.

There is no interpretation as the Constitution does not define speedy, and references the locals to determine that by omission and delegation to states and local districts by power distribution.

No interpretation necessary.

It didn't tell me whether the electric chair, torture, or lifetime incarceration are "cruel and unusual punishments."

It told you cruel and unusual was simply that....cruel, and unusual. Dictionaries define these quite well. Interpretation is not necessary when taken in context with punishment as a whole.

It also didn't tell me if the Framers mean unusual by their standards or the standards of the day.

That is just plain dumb.

It didn't tell me whether $10M is an excessive bail or not.

Well, lets see. On a wage of 10k a year, does that sound excessive to you? Do you not know the purpose of it?

You talk about context, but I just read these amendments, and nothing in them anwered these questions.

Actually it did. It is called fairness and balance of power. The peope are the final check and balance. WE decide, not them. The juries get overriding authority and we as citizens give government its power. These answers are given by context of Constitution of "excessive" by comparison to "reasonable". This would not NEED a dollar figure. It is the same everywhere else. If you have a "vagueness" it is simply because you do not know why the Constitution is WORDED the way it is, not that you need it interpreted (adapted) to today's circumstances.

Of course, not thinking the thread mentioned is worth anything, then this whole discussion is moot as well.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
By looking at individual passages of the Constitution and then deducing their meaning through contextual analysis, you are interpreting the Constitution (through internal examination).

No, I am DEDUCING nothing. Reading something which is a RULE BOOK, (which as a reminder I would point out YOU said needed no interpretation as well),

There is no possibility of contradictory lesser rules in sports that defy a Supreme Rule. There is only one rulebook and no sub-rules that could conflict. Hence, there is little need for interpretation among rules.

You need no interpretation. It is what it is. Leaving segments out which are necessary to meaning distort and REQUIRE interpretation. That is what is going on here, you are accepting ignorance as justifiable and then blaming interpretation on accepted ignorance.

Others may see the context differently and interpret it another way. Others still will see no context that is useful for interpretation and look to outside sources for interpretation (i.e, other writings and statements by the Constitutional authors, arguments in the record regarding the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments.

Then, by Constitutional decree, these people if holding public office, are to be impeached.

 

[acludem]

This kid did have the right to wear a shirt that opposes gay rights, he does not, however have the right to threaten gay students. The Supreme Court ruling in Hazelwood was primarily applicable to student-run, school sponsored newspapers. The fallout, however, has been, IMHO, a disturbing trend toward limiting free speech in schools. This kid absolutely shouldn't have been suspended. He did not violate the rights of any students by wearing a shirt plastered with biblical phrases, though I still think he could've chosen his phrases much more wisely.

acludem

 

[Moi]

It takes but a mere instant to prove which of the two of us is correct that the constitution demands interpretation. It takes but another to prove that the judiciary is so empowered.

Take the amendment:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Given the literal meaning of the word excessive, there is no concrete amount set forth in the document. What is usual, proper, necessary or normal in one circumstance may not be the same as in another. Ergo, interpretation is necessary in deciding if a bail is excessive. The circumstances must be evaluated (i.e, the literal definition of interpret).

The words cruel and unusual also contain elements of circumstance. What is cruel? Cruel to whom? Clearly prison is designed to inflict suffering for prison is not designed to allow a prisoner to thrive. Clearly the death penalty causes pain (emotional if not physical) and injury. A literal reading of the constitution clearly prohibits prison and the death penalty be used as punishment for crimes. The added word unusual allows us to temper cruel via the conjunctive “and”. That would seem, upon a literal reading, to prevent authorities from seeking new, effective punishments which would perhaps not be cruel.

This is but one example on the opaque nature of the language. A literal reading of the constitution would mean that we can only use 18th century punishments today. Certainly the founding fathers weren’t suggesting that the punishments of yore continue in perpetuity regardless of innovation.

There is no definition of any of the words in this passage which would allow the reader (and thus, follower) to understand what punishments are or are not allowed. They are not enumerated. Therefore, it is up to the reader of the document to deduce the conformance of punishments to this amendment. Is it cruel for a rapist or child molester to not have access to that which they covet…surely he would suffer- a clear violation of the words on the page. How about someone who steals bread because his family starves. Putting him in prison for life would feed him forever. Therefore, it would not cause suffering but the opposite. Should we then put all hungry people in jail for life?

Now, for Article III, the JUDICIARY (see definition below).

“Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. 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.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”

Judiciary:

a system of courts of law b : the judges of these courts
2 : a branch of government in which judicial power is vested
- judiciary adjective


Judicial:

of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice, or the judiciary <judicial processes> b : belonging to the branch of government that is charged with trying all cases that involve the government and with the administration of justice within its jurisdiction

Judgment: a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b : an opinion so pronounced

Opinion: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Given these definitions of Judicary, judicial and judgment it seems clear that a literal reading of the constitution empowers the supreme court and other courts of the land the obligation to form opinions…to try cases involving issues with the constitution and to make the ultimate decisions in those cases. There is no debate that the supreme court is authorized and charged with the obligation to decide, to offer an opinion as to the administration of this constitution.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by musicman


Okay. I didn't read the original message wrong which this thread evolved. Hmmm. I guess it would have been okay for him to have worn a shirt saying "I hate all teachers." or "All left-handed people will burn in hell".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. What does that have to do with the price of tires?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the student should not have been punished for wearing the particular shirt that he wore, should he be punished if he were to have worn a shirt that said that "Teachers are evil" or that Christians are corrupt" or that "Left handed people should burn in hell". I just want to see to what extent you believe in "free speech".

 

[Reilly]

This gets tiring, so I will only point out some of the more obvious problems with your theory of Constitutional non-interpretation.

On a wider note, you obviously put a lot of stock in the jury as the party to protect us against violations of Constitutional rights. Fine, what if the Congress passed a law stating that jury trials were not required where the President determined somone to be a threat to national security on the basis of their inciting speech. Suppose that the courts were unable to rule this law unconstitutional (because you don't think this is a right they have). If the person is never brought before a jury, and courts are unable to declare the law (and sentence) invalid, how is this person to achieve redress? Is armed rebellion your best answer?

Now for a couple of specifics...

Originally posted by NewGuy
The 14th is unconstitutional

This may be the only thing that you have stated that I may inclined to agree with.

Originally posted by NewGuy

If you want a parent for a government, you are in the wrong nation.

Since pretty much anyone with any say over the matter agrees with me, apparently I am not.

Originally posted by NewGuy


I said that the manslaughter charge was the crime, not the intent. The intent gets judged and causes either the conviction or the innocence.

The point was that States can pass laws prohibiting activity and whichrequire no intent. They could also pass laws outlawing incitement of peaceful demonstrations. If Freedom of Speech only protects the words spoken and does not prohibit prosecutions based on results, and the courts can't rule these laws unconstitutional, then a jury applying the law of the State would have to find the person guilty. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent this.

Originally posted by NewGuy

This tells me you don't pay attention and do not care about your Constitution enough to be correct in its application. I am sure veterans including our founders would love to know that.

Don't be so cocksure about your belief in non-interpretational Constitutional doctrine. The fact that pretty much no one who has studied the Constitution agrees with you, coupled with the fact that two hundred years of Constitutional scholarship and application back the current approach, might cause you to pause to obtain a little humility.

Originally posted by NewGuy

Actually, according to Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856 which was supposed to be the corresponding and superceding, not to mention legally official law dictionary of original intent of Constitutional wording, the following is said about this:

"GAOL-DELIVERY, Eng. law. To insure the trial, within a certain time, of all prisoners, a patent in the nature of a letter is issued from the king to certain persons, appointing them his justices, and authorizing them to deliver his goals. Cromp. Jurisd. 125; 4 Inst. 168; 4 Bl. Com. 269; 2 Hale, P. C. 22, 32; 2 Hawk. P. C. 14, 28. In the United States, the judges of the criminal courts are required to cause the accused to be tried within the times prescribed by the local statutes, and the constitutions rcqpire a speedy trial."

In other words, the origin of the statement was from English law in which the idea is that time is directly dictated by local statutes.

There is no interpretation as the Constitution does not define speedy, and references the locals to determine that by omission and delegation to states and local districts by power distribution.

Resort to dictionaries and outside sources is a common method of Constitutional interpretation (check the cases, that is one of the first things that is usually done). So is resort to the past practices of our common law heritage. Well done. You have embarked on a course of Constitutional interpretation.

However, what if local practice or laws state that 10 years constitutes a sufficient time to provide a speedy trial? If courts can't rule such a practice unconstitutional, the Constitution doesn't provide that much protection, does it? Especially since with no trial, there is no jury to set things right. Perhaps this would be the perfect occassion for armed rebellion.

Originally posted by NewGuy

It told you cruel and unusual was simply that....cruel, and unusual. Dictionaries define these quite well. Interpretation is not necessary when taken in context with punishment as a whole.

First, what dictionary do you use. Words constantly evolve.
Second, which definition do you use within a dictionary? Does the Constitution require you use the first definition of the Webster's dictionary, the second definition of the Oxford English?
Finally, a simple definition will never definitively tell you in a debatable situation, whether a punishment qualifies as "cruel and unusual."[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Well, lets see. On a wage of 10k a year, does that sound excessive to you? Do you not know the purpose of it?

Perhaps that sounds excessive to me, but maybe not to someone else if the crime were severe enough. Further, assuming wages of 10k per year, is 1k excessive? How about 5k? 20k? 50k? $1M? Does it depend on the severity of the crime or not? Does the dictionary tell you where to draw the line? Is it explicitly laid out in the Constitution? Remember that there are no juries prior to the indictment and guilt/ innocence stage? Where is someone's redress if not the courts themselves?

Originally posted by NewGuy

Actually it did. It is called fairness and balance of power. The peope are the final check and balance. WE decide, not them. The juries get overriding authority and we as citizens give government its power. These answers are given by context of Constitution of "excessive" by comparison to "reasonable". This would not NEED a dollar figure. It is the same everywhere else. If you have a "vagueness" it is simply because you do not know why the Constitution is WORDED the way it is, not that you need it interpreted (adapted) to today's circumstances.

Of course, not thinking the thread mentioned is worth anything, then this whole discussion is moot as well.

I didn't get the beginning of this last paragraph. Something about fairness and balance of power. Noble sentiments, but I think the question is exactly how do we ensure them. (Perhaps armed rebellion again).

I did like using the contextual analysis of "excessive" as compared to "reasonable." Nothing like determining the meaning of one vague word by reference to other vague words. That clears everything up. The truth is, eventually, a close case will come up where you actually do need a dollar figure, and you can't just make vague refenences to "excessive" and "reasonable" without deciding the particular case.

You are right. I don't know why the Constitution is worded precisely the way it is. In fact, for the most part, nobody is quite sure, despite a couple centuries of Constitutional scholarship. What do you do when the meaning of the words is unclear? Easy, you interpret as best you can - sometimes even by resorting to dictionaries.

 

[Reilly]

Moi,
Your position was very eloquently and persuasively stated - moreso than mine own post, I believe. I just wished to express my appreciation.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by mattskramer
If the student should not have been punished for wearing the particular shirt that he wore, should he be punished if he were to have worn a shirt that said that "Teachers are evil" or that Christians are corrupt" or that "Left handed people should burn in hell". I just want to see to what extent you believe in "free speech".

If you would ever bother to read my posts. You might actually understand that equating "Homosexuality is sin" to hatred of homosexuals is a fallacy designed to defame opponents to homosexuality. To clarify my post, stating that homosexuality is a sin is the equivalent of saying things like "Fur is murder" or "It's a child, not an object." It's simply an opposing viewpoint. However, those of you who support homosexuality are such bigots, that's right, bigots against anyone who disagrees with you that you resort to attaching labels like "homophobe" and "hate monger" to them.

To also clarify my earlier post:

Liberals: Stop slapping everyone who disagrees with homosexuality with the homophobe label. How would you like it if every gay supporter was slapped with the "fudge packer" label? I didn't think so. Now be accepting of opposing viewpoints without resorting to petty name calling and actually pay attention to conservative posts every once in a while or get the hell out. All I've been seeing on this page is a bunch of rhetorical bullcrap. The conservatives might as well be arguing with a Rainbow Coalition pamphlet.

Conservatives: No matter how many times you say it, your arguments aren't working and these thick-skulled liberals will never listen to a word you say without immediately twisting it around in order to compare you to Hitler, so just leave it alone.

This argument is like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Now, all this mudslinging and dead horse beating is giving me a headache. Cut it out!

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Liberals: Stop slapping everyone who disagrees with homosexuality with the homophobe label.

Hey. I am a liberal and I have never done any such thing. Don't paint with so broad a brush. Now take it back and play nicer in the future.

 

[Hobbit]

By "Liberals," I meant a few certain liberals who shall remain nameless, but whose intials are acludem and mattskramer. If I say "Liberals: stop that" and you're not doing that, then I wasn't talking to you.

If it makes you feel better, I think you've been quite civil in this discussion, and you definitely haven't been acting like the typical, rhetoric spewing liberals that I run across quite often.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Hobbit
If you would ever bother to read my posts. You might actually understand that equating "Homosexuality is sin" to hatred of homosexuals is a fallacy designed to defame opponents to homosexuality. To clarify my post, stating that homosexuality is a sin is the equivalent of saying things like "Fur is murder" or "It's a child, not an object." It's simply an opposing viewpoint. However, those of you who support homosexuality are such bigots, that's right, bigots against anyone who disagrees with you that you resort to attaching labels like "homophobe" and "hate monger" to them.

LOL. If you ever read my post, you will notice that I never equated the statement "Homosexuality is sin" with hatred of homosexuals. You statement that "homosexuality is sin" is merely your interpretation of a book that you may believe to be true. Let us assume that I have a book that says that "being left handed is a sin" and that, by implication, left-handed people who don't change their ways will go to hell...assuming such a place exists. That does not mean that I hate left-handed people.

Nice try. Now. How about a straight answer to this question: Would it have been okay for the student to wear a shirt that said that being left handed is a sin.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Hobbit
By "Liberals," I meant a few certain liberals who shall remain nameless, but whose intials are acludem and mattskramer. If I say "Liberals: stop that" and you're not doing that, then I wasn't talking to you.

If it makes you feel better, I think you've been quite civil in this discussion, and you definitely haven't been acting like the typical, rhetoric spewing liberals that I run across quite often.

Just wanted to clarify. On the whole, I find us very civil and well-thought out people (acludem & mattskramer, I personally don't exclude you). Every once and awhile I find a conservative to be the same (j/k). I am done bridge-building and trying to make everyone feel warm towards one another. Please feel free (no one in particular) to resume personal attacks and snide commentary.

This was a public service announcement from Liberals for a Better Tomorrow.

What the fuck am I talking about? I am exhausted and rambling incoherently. I shall spare you and retire now.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Moi

Take the amendment:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Given the literal meaning of the word excessive, there is no concrete amount set forth in the document. What is usual, proper, necessary or normal in one circumstance may not be the same as in another. Ergo, interpretation is necessary in deciding if a bail is excessive. The circumstances must be evaluated (i.e, the literal definition of interpret).

Believe it or not, you just agreed with me so far. We both agree the CIRCUMSTANCES are to be interpreted, not the Constitution.

The words cruel and unusual also contain elements of circumstance. What is cruel? Cruel to whom? Clearly prison is designed to inflict suffering for prison is not designed to allow a prisoner to thrive. Clearly the death penalty causes pain (emotional if not physical) and injury. A literal reading of the constitution clearly prohibits prison and the death penalty be used as punishment for crimes. The added word unusual allows us to temper cruel via the conjunctive “and”. That would seem, upon a literal reading, to prevent authorities from seeking new, effective punishments which would perhaps not be cruel.

Correct. This, again, requires understanding THE CIRCUMSTANCES, not the re-evaluation of the Constitution. Once the circumstances have been evaluated, determining cruel and unusual is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of standard. -In other words, no deviation from what would appropriately be non-cruel and non-unusual. Appropriation being determined by circumstance.

This is but one example on the opaque nature of the language. A literal reading of the constitution would mean that we can only use 18th century punishments today.

Actually, it means a pretty close adherence, yes.

Certainly the founding fathers weren’t suggesting that the punishments of yore continue in perpetuity regardless of innovation.

And why not? Do you think they would have wanted religion or corruption or morality to change?

They wanted perfection. They created the closest thing they could. If they would have change in any capacity, the moral absolute of a lawful absolute is the only way to keep morality and or corruption in check.

There is no definition of any of the words in this passage which would allow the reader (and thus, follower) to understand what punishments are or are not allowed. They are not enumerated. Therefore, it is up to the reader of the document to deduce the conformance of punishments to this amendment. Is it cruel for a rapist or child molester to not have access to that which they covet…surely he would suffer- a clear violation of the words on the page. How about someone who steals bread because his family starves. Putting him in prison for life would feed him forever. Therefore, it would not cause suffering but the opposite. Should we then put all hungry people in jail for life?

You are twisting the context. The punishment is not to be cruel or unusual....we are not reading a Constitution speaking of the person's situation in relation to effects caused by the crime or before the crime. The punishment is the subject and in context refers to IT being cruel or unusual. The punishment clearly stands on its own....IN CONTEXT.

Now, for Article III, the JUDICIARY (see definition below).

Section 2. 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.

Notice what I have highlighted....these are the qualifiers for the terms. Look at the word "between" and how it is used. It is used to specifically determine who is affected.

Now look at the term "all cases" it simply IS "all cases" and clarifies clearly as such.

Both of these have been used here numerous times. Considering these people were educated, they meant what they said.

Now look at the word "under". It is used 3 times and specifically is in reference to a subordinate function. -In other words, "under" refers to being subordinate to the other item referenced. This is done 3 times. The other terminologies were clear and explicit. The other terms were leaving no doubt. The word "under", used 3 times was no accident. It was meant as it is read, which is clearly as I have just shown defined.

Given these definitions of Judicary, judicial and judgment it seems clear that a literal reading of the constitution empowers the supreme court and other courts of the land the obligation to form opinions…to try cases involving issues with the constitution and to make the ultimate decisions in those cases.

Again, that can ONLY happen if the word "under" is taken out of context which invariably leads to a corrupt branch and MUST lead to activist judges.

There is no debate that the supreme court is authorized and charged with the obligation to decide, to offer an opinion as to the administration of this constitution.

Again, If you hinge everything on the context of "under" as your proof appears to, then I would seriously ask for a neutral analysis of what I have just shown. -Usining all rational logic without opinionated bias-, just analysis of in context text, I would ask your honest opinion of what this literally means.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The 14th is unconstitutional and your last statement there is completely redundant since the following exists:

OK, NewGuy, I know you are a very very very very strict Constitutionalist. However, how is the 14th Amendment unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution??

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly

On a wider note, you obviously put a lot of stock in the jury as the party to protect us against violations of Constitutional rights. Fine, what if the Congress passed a law stating that jury trials were not required where the President determined somone to be a threat to national security on the basis of their inciting speech.

Impossible. The Constitution clearly states everyone gets a trial. This is why you have a problem. You forget who is in charge with our laws.

Suppose that the courts were unable to rule this law unconstitutional (because you don't think this is a right they have). If the person is never brought before a jury, and courts are unable to declare the law (and sentence) invalid, how is this person to achieve redress? Is armed rebellion your best answer?

Again, see above.

Since pretty much anyone with any say over the matter agrees with me, apparently I am not.

Again, majority does not determine law. The Constitution does. Why do you think it is there? Wallpaper?

The point was that States can pass laws prohibiting activity and which require no intent. They could also pass laws outlawing incitement of peaceful demonstrations. If Freedom of Speech only protects the words spoken and does not prohibit prosecutions based on results, and the courts can't rule these laws unconstitutional, then a jury applying the law of the State would have to find the person guilty. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent this.

Wrong. The juries tasks have already been listed in this thread for you by me. They include determining wether the law should apply to the individual. I will not repeat it. No judge can over-ride a jury. Also, the states, as the Bill of Rights clearly dictates, cannot over-ride the Constitution. The states CAN make laws that say if you do "x" you go to jail. The job of the jury is to determine wether or not the law applies to the person and declaire their verdict. If the law flies in the face of the Constitution, the Constitution clearly calls for those lawmakers to be impeached by Congress.

Don't be so cocksure about your belief in non-interpretational Constitutional doctrine. The fact that pretty much no one who has studied the Constitution agrees with you, coupled with the fact that two hundred years of Constitutional scholarship and application back the current approach, might cause you to pause to obtain a little humility.

I am humbled by that fact simply because I am one of the few who know how our founders thought. I realize that most people do not understand and it is my job as having this level of understanding, that I also have the responsibility to help others understand whatever the cost. Would you lay down YOUR life for the same?

Resort to dictionaries and outside sources is a common method of Constitutional interpretation (check the cases, that is one of the first things that is usually done).

Actually, do this yourself. You will see that the source was the nationwide renown resource for understanding the word definitions in context. Would you prefer the entire "Federalist Papers" document? How about the "Declaration of Arms"or The "Virginia Declaration of Rights"? Shall I reprint them all so you can take the Constitution in context after being forced to by complete indoctrination of our founders and how they thought? Until you are willing to do this, I have resorted to the best other source I thought you would accept. If the original document and the compiled resource don't do it for you, you certainly won't read the others.

So is resort to the past practices of our common law heritage. Well done. You have embarked on a course of Constitutional interpretation.

No, I used literal in context meaning, and it is something you do not accept. As such, I went to the source of the document, our founders' thinking patterns and statements compiled for a second attempt. Again, see above statement.

However, what if local practice or laws state that 10 years constitutes a sufficient time to provide a speedy trial? If courts can't rule such a practice unconstitutional, the Constitution doesn't provide that much protection, does it?

It sure does. Do you think voters and juries do not play a part here? How do you think laws are supposed to be passed? Who do you think is supposed to be impeached if this process is a result of bad behavior or crime?

Especially since with no trial, there is no jury to set things right. Perhaps this would be the perfect occassion for armed rebellion.

If all else failed, yes.

First, what dictionary do you use. Words constantly evolve.
Second, which definition do you use within a dictionary? Does the Constitution require you use the first definition of the Webster's dictionary, the second definition of the Oxford English?

That is your problem. Dictionaries without using context are useless and twist meanings. Do you expect the Constitution to define "is" also?

Finally, a simple definition will never definitively tell you in a debatable situation, whether a punishment qualifies as "cruel and unusual."

Already adressed, and yet you cannot seem to understand how to take it in context. See my answers with Moi.

Perhaps that sounds excessive to me, but maybe not to someone else if the crime were severe enough.

Again, excessive in context. It is refering to money. The only way that makes sense is to remember what bail is and does. If it is 1 million and the person makes 5k a year, how is bail even applicable? It is totally worthless. Excessive is what puts it out of reach entirely....regardless of crime. You are not thinking about justice, you are thinking about revenge. The Constitution was not written for revenge.

Further, assuming wages of 10k per year, is 1k excessive? How about 5k? 20k? 50k? $1M?

That is determined by the circumstances of the individual and their finances.

Does it depend on the severity of the crime or not?

Not ENTIRELY directly. That is why bail exists.

Does the dictionary tell you where to draw the line? Is it explicitly laid out in the Constitution?

Based on relation of circumstances balanced by judges who must remain in good behavior and within Constitutional law, and potential veto by jury, YES.

Remember that there are no juries prior to the indictment and guilt/ innocence stage?

Again, see what the job of a jury is.

Where is someone's redress if not the courts themselves?

1. juries
2. impeachment by Congress
3. Petition by citizens and free speech
4. revolution through right of bearing arms.

I didn't get the beginning of this last paragraph. Something about fairness and balance of power. Noble sentiments, but I think the question is exactly how do we ensure them. (Perhaps armed rebellion again).

Read the Constitution again. The only thing the document is for is to balance and check power amongst ALL people and positions of power in the nation. I have already shown this to you. Now you aren't even reading my posts all the way through.

I did like using the contextual analysis of "excessive" as compared to "reasonable." Nothing like determining the meaning of one vague word by reference to other vague words. That clears everything up.

It does when taken in context.

The truth is, eventually, a close case will come up where you actually do need a dollar figure, and you can't just make vague refenences to "excessive" and "reasonable" without deciding the particular case.

No, you have to know the individual's financial situation. Why is that so difficult?

You are right. I don't know why the Constitution is worded precisely the way it is. In fact, for the most part, nobody is quite sure, despite a couple centuries of Constitutional scholarship.

It is that kind of thinking that the socialists WANT you to have so you put government in power over the people instead of the other way around.

What do you do when the meaning of the words is unclear? Easy, you interpret as best you can - sometimes even by resorting to dictionaries.

Grounds for impeachment.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Nice try. Now. How about a straight answer to this question: Would it have been okay for the student to wear a shirt that said that being left handed is a sin. [/B]

Nice no one is answering you, yes, it would be fine for someone to wear a shirt that said that. However, with no factual proof, religious texts, etc. etc. to back it up, that student would be very foolish.