Speaker Ryan: "...honest differences honestly stated."

[OKTexas]

When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.

Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"

Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.

So you're saying it's an exercise in futility to bother to write a law down, if a judge or group of judges can completely alter its operation and meaning or just erase parts of it. I mean if the folks that wrote them, debated them and voted on them and the president that signed them could't have possibly as smart as some lawyer/s in robe/s decades later. And you're OK with that?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.

You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?

 

[OKTexas]

Enough word games,

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, so I'll call it names, lie about it, and hope somebody believes there's something wrong with it anyway.

A simple yes or no is all that's required.

TRANSLATION: Please don't point out my deflection attempts and disingenuousness.

do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions?

Such as the part that says, "The Federal govt can only have the powers listed in this document. And if you want it to have any more powers, 3/4 of the states must agree, and the President has no say at all in the decision." ?

That part?

No, I don't agree with the courts "redefining" it.

Anything else I can help you with?

Don't quote me out of order, and if you're going to enter a conversation, post the whole conversation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!

When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.

Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"

Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.

So you're saying it's an exercise in futility to bother to write a law down, if a judge or group of judges can completely alter its operation and meaning or just erase parts of it. I mean if the folks that wrote them, debated them and voted on them and the president that signed them could't have possibly as smart as some lawyer/s in robe/s decades later. And you're OK with that?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

Until you understand that words have meanings that adapt to our lives that you can't change, you are not the Game Master.

You are an originalist, obviously. Scalia and Thomas and Alito foster error with that approach. I would no more want Washington or Jefferson or Marshall or Lincoln in charge now than I would FDR or Eisenhower.

 

[OKTexas]

When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.

Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"

Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.

So you're saying it's an exercise in futility to bother to write a law down, if a judge or group of judges can completely alter its operation and meaning or just erase parts of it. I mean if the folks that wrote them, debated them and voted on them and the president that signed them could't have possibly as smart as some lawyer/s in robe/s decades later. And you're OK with that?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

Until you understand that words have meanings that adapt to our lives that you can't change, you are not the Game Master.

You are an originalist, obviously. Scalia and Thomas and Alito foster error with that approach. I would no more want Washington or Jefferson or Marshall or Lincoln in charge now than I would FDR or Eisenhower.

So you prefer unelected commie judges to eradicate the supreme law of the land on a whim, no thank you.

 

[TNHarley]

They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"

Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.

So you're saying it's an exercise in futility to bother to write a law down, if a judge or group of judges can completely alter its operation and meaning or just erase parts of it. I mean if the folks that wrote them, debated them and voted on them and the president that signed them could't have possibly as smart as some lawyer/s in robe/s decades later. And you're OK with that?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.

You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?

Doesn't make it irrelevant. Economies evolve constantly. One has to be realistic

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying it's an exercise in futility to bother to write a law down, if a judge or group of judges can completely alter its operation and meaning or just erase parts of it. I mean if the folks that wrote them, debated them and voted on them and the president that signed them could't have possibly as smart as some lawyer/s in robe/s decades later. And you're OK with that?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.

You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?

Doesn't make it irrelevant. Economies evolve constantly. One has to be realistic

Earlier you agreed that judges shouldn't be granting the government powers not enumerated in the Constitution, now you're saying allowing them to do so is "realistic". Are you confused or just a hypocrite?

 

[TNHarley]

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.

You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?

Doesn't make it irrelevant. Economies evolve constantly. One has to be realistic

Earlier you agreed that judges shouldn't be granting the government powers not enumerated in the Constitution, now you're saying allowing them to do so is "realistic". Are you confused or just a hypocrite?

They INTERPRET. Interpretations of evolving situations will... evolve.

 

[OKTexas]

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.

You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?

Doesn't make it irrelevant. Economies evolve constantly. One has to be realistic

Earlier you agreed that judges shouldn't be granting the government powers not enumerated in the Constitution, now you're saying allowing them to do so is "realistic". Are you confused or just a hypocrite?

They INTERPRET. Interpretations of evolving situations will... evolve.

Their job isn't interpretation, it's application, the written word does not evolve.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.

You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?

Doesn't make it irrelevant. Economies evolve constantly. One has to be realistic

Earlier you agreed that judges shouldn't be granting the government powers not enumerated in the Constitution, now you're saying allowing them to do so is "realistic". Are you confused or just a hypocrite?

They INTERPRET. Interpretations of evolving situations will... evolve.

Their job isn't interpretation, it's application, the written word does not evolve.

The judicial branch doesn't interpret? Really? lol

 

[OKTexas]

You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?

Doesn't make it irrelevant. Economies evolve constantly. One has to be realistic

Earlier you agreed that judges shouldn't be granting the government powers not enumerated in the Constitution, now you're saying allowing them to do so is "realistic". Are you confused or just a hypocrite?

They INTERPRET. Interpretations of evolving situations will... evolve.

Their job isn't interpretation, it's application, the written word does not evolve.

The judicial branch doesn't interpret? Really? lol

Didn't say they don't, I said it's not their job. Where does the Constitution give judges the power to change a contract between the States that the courts are not even a party to. Article 5 gives the States the power to change the contract, not the courts or the government it created.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Don't quote me out of order, and if you're going to enter a conversation, post the whole conversation.

TRANSLATION: I still can't answer any of the points you've made. So I'll change the subject and pretend you said something the wrong way, and pretend that makes a dime's worth of difference to the subject of the thread. Maybe somebody will be fooled into thinking I have a point about something.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe somebody will be fooled into thinking I have a point about something.

I seriously doubt it.

I still can't answer any of the points you've made.

Exactly. Translation, you're a dumb MF without a clue.