When is a liberal interpretation of the Constitution UnAmerican?

[Skull Pilot]

It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
.

I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.

no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters

 

[gipper]

It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
.

I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.

no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters

There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized.

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

No justice gets to apply his or her own interpretation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
.

I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.

no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters

There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized.

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it

 

[gipper]

It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
.

I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.

no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters

There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized.

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

 

[TipOfTheIceberg]

Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.

What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.

If only the Constitution was actually adhered to by the central government. If it were, government would be limited to doing only what the Constitution allows...this is what limited government means. Please take note.

Nearly everything the central government is currently doing is unconstitutional. Sadly too many dummies like you don't know this clear and evident fact.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Youneed an enema cause you are so full of shit, gipper. I know were yu were banned, lol.

 

[danielpalos]

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.

when it gives in to right wing, Orwellian fantasy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
.

I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.

no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters

There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized.

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

 

[gipper]

I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.

no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters

There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized.

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

 

[gipper]

Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.

What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.

If only the Constitution was actually adhered to by the central government. If it were, government would be limited to doing only what the Constitution allows...this is what limited government means. Please take note.

Nearly everything the central government is currently doing is unconstitutional. Sadly too many dummies like you don't know this clear and evident fact.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Youneed an enema cause you are so full of shit, gipper. I know were yu were banned, lol.

What?

 

[Skull Pilot]

no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters

There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized.

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.

 

[gipper]

There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized.

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.

Again, the nine justices are not suppose to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. They are to apply its meaning as the Founder's intended it, to cases they hear.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What is so fucking wonderful about living in a nation where the rich can fuck over and do what ever they fucking want??? While everyone else gets next to no say.

I'd rather live in a society that allows people to vote for the government that works for them.


I couldn't imagine a less free reality then the one you liberterians promote.

 

[gipper]

What is so fucking wonderful about living in a nation where the rich can fuck over and do what ever they fucking want??? While everyone else gets next to no say.

I'd rather live in a society that allows people to vote for the government that works for them.


I couldn't imagine a less free reality then the one you liberterians promote.

You don't know that your government is responsible and is the one fucking you over.

 

[regent]

The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.

Again, the nine justices are not suppose to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. They are to apply its meaning as the Founder's intended it, to cases they hear.

So the justices use their opinion as to what the Framers intended.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.

Again, the nine justices are not suppose to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. They are to apply its meaning as the Founder's intended it, to cases they hear.

So the justices use their opinion as to what the Framers intended.

The guy wants us to go back to the confederation and more or less turn our federal government into a defense pact.

No democracy for the people
Government doesn't do shit
The rich and corporations own society without government to stop them.
The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.

 

[gipper]

No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government. Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.

Again, the nine justices are not suppose to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. They are to apply its meaning as the Founder's intended it, to cases they hear.

So the justices use their opinion as to what the Framers intended.

No.

The Framers made their interpretation of the Constitution very well known. Of course, you need to read history to know this. Start with the Federalist Papers.

 

[gipper]

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.

Again, the nine justices are not suppose to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. They are to apply its meaning as the Founder's intended it, to cases they hear.

So the justices use their opinion as to what the Framers intended.

The guy wants us to go back to the confederation and more or less turn our federal government into a defense pact.

No democracy for the people
Government doesn't do shit
The rich and corporations own society without government to stop them.
The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.

You are so ignorant that you don't realize all those things you list, are exactly what we have today.

 

[gipper]

None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive

I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs. Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution. If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed. To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently, is naive and well stupid.

Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.

Again, the nine justices are not suppose to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. They are to apply its meaning as the Founder's intended it, to cases they hear.

So the justices use their opinion as to what the Framers intended.

The guy wants us to go back to the confederation and more or less turn our federal government into a defense pact.

No democracy for the people
Government doesn't do shit
The rich and corporations own society without government to stop them.
The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.

Even the great John Lennon knows you are wrong....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The guy wants us to go back to the confederation and more or less turn our federal government into a defense pact.

No democracy for the people
.

states would have democracies?????????????? and if you didn't like your state's democracy you could move to a state you did like.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government doesn't do shit

state govt can do as much as it wants. Do you understand anything at all?


67)James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."