Then Or Now: How To Read The Constitution

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Barrett:
“There’s a lot of talk these days about the courts being mere political institutions. But if we reduce the courts to mere politics, then why do we need them? We already have politicians. Courts are not arenas for politics. Courts are places where judges discharge the duty to uphold the rule of law,” she said.


“All judges think that the original meaning of the Constitution—its history, the way that it was understood by those who ratified it, who drafted it, the founding generation—all judges take that as a data point, as relevant,” she said. “Those who are committed to originalism treat it as determinative when the original meaning is discernible. Others just treat it as a data point, but one that would not necessarily control. So that will yield different outcomes in different cases.”


Barrett went on to cite Scalia, who “used to say that a judge who likes every result that she reaches is not a very good judge. In fact, she’s a very bad judge. The law simply does not align with a judge’s political preference or personal preference in every case.”

That sure sounds originalist to me."
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
2,729
Points
260
Location
Texas
I hope she lives up to they hype. I've read some pretty articulate reasoning even from Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomeyer- and, no, don't even go there about my *leanings*- I don't subscribe to the Duopoly dogma.

That said, I think there is too much hype on judges. They're just lawyers and lawyers pay others to teach them to lie, spin and castigate- I think judges should be ordinary people who comprehend simple English. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I hope she lives up to they hype. I've read some pretty articulate reasoning even from Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomeyer- and, no, don't even go there about my *leanings*- I don't subscribe to the Duopoly dogma.

That said, I think there is too much hype on judges. They're just lawyers and lawyers pay others to teach them to lie, spin and castigate- I think judges should be ordinary people who comprehend simple English. Nothing more, nothing less.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary. From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.

They stole that power in the atrocious Marbury v. Madison ruling, and the congress has been derelict in their duty to rein in this rouge oligarchy ever since...Indeed, they have deferred to them out of sheer legislative cowardice.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary. From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.

They stole that power in the atrocious Marbury v. Madison ruling, and the congress has been derelict in their duty to rein in this rouge oligarchy ever since...Indeed, they have deferred to them out of sheer legislative cowardice.

2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

Your conclusion about the human beings who wield power has nothing to do with the correctness of my statement.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.


From Marbury on, the corrupt association of the executive and the judiciary has produced a 'king' known as big governemnt.

My view is that of Thoreau:
In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
2,891
Points
350
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
I hope she lives up to they hype. I've read some pretty articulate reasoning even from Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomeyer- and, no, don't even go there about my *leanings*- I don't subscribe to the Duopoly dogma.

That said, I think there is too much hype on judges. They're just lawyers and lawyers pay others to teach them to lie, spin and castigate- I think judges should be ordinary people who comprehend simple English. Nothing more, nothing less.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.
Maybe we shouldn't call judicial decisions decisions at all, but something more like waypoints.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I hope she lives up to they hype. I've read some pretty articulate reasoning even from Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomeyer- and, no, don't even go there about my *leanings*- I don't subscribe to the Duopoly dogma.

That said, I think there is too much hype on judges. They're just lawyers and lawyers pay others to teach them to lie, spin and castigate- I think judges should be ordinary people who comprehend simple English. Nothing more, nothing less.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.
Maybe we shouldn't call judicial decisions decisions at all, but something more like waypoints.

I kinda like 'suggestions.'
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
2,729
Points
260
Location
Texas
The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by.
I was going to point that out but decided why? Nobody who has their mind made up will change it.

It's pretty obvious that with no punishment for judges who "rule" on their opinion and not the law that it is merely a rule- and rules are made to be broken- some people make a good living at it, some come by it naturally, some work at it and others emulate those who are successful at it- of course if they're a "stinky tourist" they get punished because citizens rules for behavior are *law* and can be punished for non-adherence, unless they have the resources to pay legal liars (lawyers, some of whom have been promoted to wearing a black dress) to twist, spin and castigate on their behalf which leads to justice being blinded by- not justice being blind.
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
2,729
Points
260
Location
Texas
There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
That will never happen due to narcissist and weak minded liars, who also happen to subscribe to Public Education that has no solid foundation in Truth- and I ain't talking about religious dogma.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary. From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.

They stole that power in the atrocious Marbury v. Madison ruling, and the congress has been derelict in their duty to rein in this rouge oligarchy ever since...Indeed, they have deferred to them out of sheer legislative cowardice.

2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

Your conclusion about the human beings who wield power has nothing to do with the correctness of my statement.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.


From Marbury on, the corrupt association of the executive and the judiciary has produced a 'king' known as big governemnt.

My view is that of Thoreau:
In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
Your statement is incorrect in that none of us has agreed to anything.....The Constitution was written generations before any of us, or those who cynically operate under its auspices, were even born.

How the District of Criminals hasn't been descended upon and laid waste to decades ago, and it's tyrannical denizens tarred and feathered if not killed outright, is one of the great mysteries of the ages.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by.
I was going to point that out but decided why? Nobody who has their mind made up will change it.

It's pretty obvious that with no punishment for judges who "rule" on their opinion and not the law that it is merely a rule- and rules are made to be broken- some people make a good living at it, some come by it naturally, some work at it and others emulate those who are successful at it- of course if they're a "stinky tourist" they get punished because citizens rules for behavior are *law* and can be punished for non-adherence, unless they have the resources to pay legal liars (lawyers, some of whom have been promoted to wearing a black dress) to twist, spin and castigate on their behalf which leads to justice being blinded by- not justice being blind.

"No punishment" ..."no accountability" are the watchwords of Leftism....and it's proven to be tres popular among the hoi polloi.....hence the election of Democrats.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
That will never happen due to narcissist and weak minded liars, who also happen to subscribe to Public Education that has no solid foundation in Truth- and I ain't talking about religious dogma.

OMG!!!

I find myself agreeing with you......I may have the vapors.

I must go to my room and lie down.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary. From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.

They stole that power in the atrocious Marbury v. Madison ruling, and the congress has been derelict in their duty to rein in this rouge oligarchy ever since...Indeed, they have deferred to them out of sheer legislative cowardice.

2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

Your conclusion about the human beings who wield power has nothing to do with the correctness of my statement.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.


From Marbury on, the corrupt association of the executive and the judiciary has produced a 'king' known as big governemnt.

My view is that of Thoreau:
In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
Your statement is incorrect in that none of us has agreed to anything.....The Constitution was written generations before any of us, or those who cynically operate under its auspices, were even born.

How the District of Criminals hasn't been descended upon and laid waste to, and it's tyrannical denizens tarred and feathered if not killed outright, decades ago is one of the great mysteries of the ages.
You're wrong.
Ratification is the agreement.


The corruption that followed is due to human nature, and is the reason no society lasts forever.
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
2,891
Points
350
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
The Constitution should have begun "We the States of the United States . . ." rather than "We the People of the United States . . ." The states ratified it, not the people.

Although individual states did put the subject of ratification to their citizens, so in an indirect sense, it was an agreement of the people as well.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary. From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.

They stole that power in the atrocious Marbury v. Madison ruling, and the congress has been derelict in their duty to rein in this rouge oligarchy ever since...Indeed, they have deferred to them out of sheer legislative cowardice.

2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

Your conclusion about the human beings who wield power has nothing to do with the correctness of my statement.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.


From Marbury on, the corrupt association of the executive and the judiciary has produced a 'king' known as big governemnt.

My view is that of Thoreau:
In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
Your statement is incorrect in that none of us has agreed to anything.....The Constitution was written generations before any of us, or those who cynically operate under its auspices, were even born.

How the District of Criminals hasn't been descended upon and laid waste to, and it's tyrannical denizens tarred and feathered if not killed outright, decades ago is one of the great mysteries of the ages.
You're wrong.
Ratification is the agreement.


The corruption that followed is due to human nature, and is the reason no society lasts forever.
The ratification occurred without any of our consent.

Bone up on some Lysander Spooner.
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
2,729
Points
260
Location
Texas
OMG!!!

I find myself agreeing with you......I may have the vapors.

I must go to my room and lie down.
I've had that effect on girls my whole life :p next thing you know you'll be wanting me to beat you, talk dirty to you and make you write bad checks too;)
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,222
Reaction score
34,217
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary. From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.

They stole that power in the atrocious Marbury v. Madison ruling, and the congress has been derelict in their duty to rein in this rouge oligarchy ever since...Indeed, they have deferred to them out of sheer legislative cowardice.

2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Wrong-o....The Constitution is a set of rules that those who participate in gubmint promise to abide by...A promise that hasn't been kept for at least the last century, if not longer....It is not binding upon any of the general citizenry.

Your conclusion about the human beings who wield power has nothing to do with the correctness of my statement.


I'm not a fan of a Supreme Court at all.

This is what I've always said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."



The Supreme Court, from the start, has eroded and destroyed the federalism that was the basis for ratification.


From Marbury on, the corrupt association of the executive and the judiciary has produced a 'king' known as big governemnt.

My view is that of Thoreau:
In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
Your statement is incorrect in that none of us has agreed to anything.....The Constitution was written generations before any of us, or those who cynically operate under its auspices, were even born.

How the District of Criminals hasn't been descended upon and laid waste to, and it's tyrannical denizens tarred and feathered if not killed outright, decades ago is one of the great mysteries of the ages.
You're wrong.
Ratification is the agreement.


The corruption that followed is due to human nature, and is the reason no society lasts forever.
The ratification occurred without any of our consent.

Bone up on some Lysander Spooner.


False until you give up your US citizenship,
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top