When is a liberal interpretation of the Constitution UnAmerican?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The rich and corporations own society without government to stop them.
.

dear, if you have capitalism the rich and corporations survive only by offering the common man the best jobs and products possible. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.

not if you have Republican capitalism. then the lower 90% must be offered the best products and wages in the world. When govt intervenes as Stalin Mao and Castro did 100 million starved to death thanks to their interference.

Govt is the enemy not the protector of capitalism . How did you get it backwards?

 

[gipper]

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."

If only the Constitution were used as James Madison intended. It is really a dead letter. Thanks to assholes who think the Constitution can be interpreted as they see fit, we now live under rule by elite rather than by law.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thanks to assholes who think the Constitution can be interpreted as they see fit,

yep, govt caused all the evil in human history and yet liberals love govt. It's so stupid it should be illegal.

 

[regent]

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.

The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no power, just as a poster's opinion on these message boards.

 

[gipper]

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.

The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no power, just as a poster's opinion on these message boards.

Why the strawman post? Oh...its YOU...the strawman king.

The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. They were written to explain the Constitution and promote it's ratification.

If you continue to respond to my well informed posts with ignorant ones, you leave me no choice but to ban you.

 

[danielpalos]

The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.

not if you have Republican capitalism. then the lower 90% must be offered the best products and wages in the world. When govt intervenes as Stalin Mao and Castro did 100 million starved to death thanks to their interference.

Govt is the enemy not the protector of capitalism . How did you get it backwards?

Only the right wing, is that fantastical. The Socialism of Government provides stable markets for Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

If only the Constitution were used as James Madison intended. It is really a dead letter. Thanks to assholes who think the Constitution can be interpreted as they see fit, we now live under rule by elite rather than by law.

that only happens with politics. y'all elected a one percenter.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no power, just as a poster's opinion on these message boards.

The Federalist Papers provide the rationale for the federal doctrine and our Republican form of Government. Only the fantastical, right wing, never gets it.

 

[regent]

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.

The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no power, just as a poster's opinion on these message boards.

Why the strawman post? Oh...its YOU...the strawman king.

The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. They were written to explain the Constitution and promote it's ratification.

If you continue to respond to my well informed posts with ignorant ones, you leave me no choice but to ban you.

Well it's one way to stifle a different view. but understandable.

 

[gipper]

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.

The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no power, just as a poster's opinion on these message boards.

Why the strawman post? Oh...its YOU...the strawman king.

The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. They were written to explain the Constitution and promote it's ratification.

If you continue to respond to my well informed posts with ignorant ones, you leave me no choice but to ban you.

Well it's one way to stifle a different view. but understandable.

There is no different view. There is right and wrong. You are wrong.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Elitist Star Chamber

SCROTUS empowered itself. It interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. That was not only a logical fallacy, but it was obviously untrue or they would have been judging and rejecting Acts of Congress since 1789. Second, judicial review had nothing to do with deciding Marbury's case against Madison. So it was obiter dictum and therefore non-binding.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Elitist Star Chamber

SCROTUS empowered itself. It interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. That was not only a logical fallacy, but it was obviously untrue or they would have been judging and rejecting Acts of Congress since 1789. Second, judicial review had nothing to do with deciding Marbury's case against Madison. So it was obiter dictum and therefore non-binding.

I agree, one justice said," give me 5 votes and I can do anything I want." In short, they now have the power to control all of govt. This was clearly not what our Founders wanted for any branch of govt and certainly not the tiny unelected SCOTUS..

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Elitist Star Chamber

SCROTUS empowered itself. It interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. That was not only a logical fallacy, but it was obviously untrue or they would have been judging and rejecting Acts of Congress since 1789. Second, judicial review had nothing to do with deciding Marbury's case against Madison. So it was obiter dictum and therefore non-binding.

I agree, one justice said," give me 5 votes and I can do anything I want." In short, they now have the power to control all of govt. This was clearly not what our Founders wanted for any branch of govt and certainly not the tiny unelected SCOTUS..

Judicial Review Must Be Nullified

It constitutes (pun intended) an extra layer of Establishment tyranny. If Congress is limited by the voters' wrath from imposing an undesirable law on the nation, SCROTUS can step in and step on the people's will.

 

[Lastamender]

WATCH - The Lawfare Project

 

[regent]

So where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review? Most books on the law and Constitution cannot seem to find the clause.

 

[danielpalos]

So where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review? Most books on the law and Constitution cannot seem to find the clause.

we don't have a drug war clause, either; coincidence or conspiracy?

 

[regent]

So where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review? Most books on the law and Constitution cannot seem to find the clause.

we don't have a drug war clause, either; coincidence or conspiracy?

So are you suggesting that Congress can pass any legislation it wants because it passed a drug war clause?

 

[danielpalos]

So where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review? Most books on the law and Constitution cannot seem to find the clause.

we don't have a drug war clause, either; coincidence or conspiracy?

So are you suggesting that Congress can pass any legislation it wants because it passed a drug war clause?

they already have; what natural rights have they not trampled?