Where Did Our Republic Go??

[idb]

1. "Democracy by definition is a defective product."
Can you produce that definition, from a source other than your imagination?

There are those who find that evincing a world-weary cynicism gives a certain sophistication....I see it as either a lack of understanding or a pretension.

2. "You truly live in a dream world."

a. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Robert Kennedy

b. Our ideals resemble the stars, which illuminate the night. NO one will ever be able to touch them. But the men, who, like the sailors on the ocean, take them for guidelines, will undoubtedly reach their goal.
Carl Schurz

c. “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”
Robert Browning


Hope this helps you out.

1. "Democracy by definition is a defective product."
Can you produce that definition, from a source other than your imagination?

There are those who find that evincing a world-weary cynicism gives a certain sophistication....I see it as either a lack of understanding or a pretension.

You dismiss communism as a theory that is unworkable due to the impossibility of controlling human nature, but are unwilling to accept that democracy might have any shortcomings for the same reason?

"You dismiss communism blah blah blah...."

When I read your post I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….

Applying your entire compliment of brain cells,
...and delving deeply into your knowledge of history,
you decided to make the case that the evidence from those nations that have tried democracy is equivalent to those that have wandered down the paths of communism????


Well, at least your number of brain cells has reached a manageable number....


Speaking of numbers, did the slaughter of over one hundred million human beings by the forces of communism in the last century enter into your calculations to any extent?


Now, since education hasn't taken, the next experiment on the agenda would be for you to jump in the lake to see if that point on your head writes underwater.

I make no case except that your obvious unthinking partisanship prevents you from adopting an unbiased view.
Your reply confirms it yet again.

Now...give me another insult...I dare ya!!!
I do suggest another cut-and-paste one though, as I suggested earlier, because your free-lance efforts are around 10 year-old level and I'm sure that isn't the image you're aiming for.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You dismiss communism as a theory that is unworkable due to the impossibility of controlling human nature, but are unwilling to accept that democracy might have any shortcomings for the same reason?

"You dismiss communism blah blah blah...."

When I read your post I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….

Applying your entire compliment of brain cells,
...and delving deeply into your knowledge of history,
you decided to make the case that the evidence from those nations that have tried democracy is equivalent to those that have wandered down the paths of communism????


Well, at least your number of brain cells has reached a manageable number....


Speaking of numbers, did the slaughter of over one hundred million human beings by the forces of communism in the last century enter into your calculations to any extent?


Now, since education hasn't taken, the next experiment on the agenda would be for you to jump in the lake to see if that point on your head writes underwater.

I make no case except that your obvious unthinking partisanship prevents you from adopting an unbiased view.
Your reply confirms it yet again.

Now...give me another insult...I dare ya!!!
I do suggest another cut-and-paste one though, as I suggested earlier, because your free-lance efforts are around 10 year-old level and I'm sure that isn't the image you're aiming for.

Did you think this a clever retort?

You sound like an idiot who has been wounded....

...and appears no more than a child looking for a high-sounding
way of saying 'I don't like you.'

Why not simply say 'I don't like you'?

I suppose because you realize the effect it would have....
...I'd be terribly upset.

 

[idb]

"You dismiss communism blah blah blah...."

When I read your post I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….

Applying your entire compliment of brain cells,
...and delving deeply into your knowledge of history,
you decided to make the case that the evidence from those nations that have tried democracy is equivalent to those that have wandered down the paths of communism????


Well, at least your number of brain cells has reached a manageable number....


Speaking of numbers, did the slaughter of over one hundred million human beings by the forces of communism in the last century enter into your calculations to any extent?


Now, since education hasn't taken, the next experiment on the agenda would be for you to jump in the lake to see if that point on your head writes underwater.

I make no case except that your obvious unthinking partisanship prevents you from adopting an unbiased view.
Your reply confirms it yet again.

Now...give me another insult...I dare ya!!!
I do suggest another cut-and-paste one though, as I suggested earlier, because your free-lance efforts are around 10 year-old level and I'm sure that isn't the image you're aiming for.

Did you think this a clever retort?

You sound like an idiot who has been wounded....

...and appears no more than a child looking for a high-sounding
way of saying 'I don't like you.'

Why not simply say 'I don't like you'?

I suppose because you realize the effect it would have....
...I'd be terribly upset.

Really...here's the link Google
Try searching for something like 'trying to sound grown-up insults'.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I see is the tacit acknowledgement that social welfare spending is not in violation of the Constitution, as long as it meets whatever arbitrary philosophical test you decide to put it to.

The existence of a federal agency dispensing education, food, housing, health care, etc in the mid-19th century puts to rest the notion that prior to FDR there was some universal "understanding that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to dispense charity or aid or benevolence to anybody." Your own posts in this thread put to rest any notion that you personally hold such a rigid understanding of the federal government's authority to tax and spend.

I'm not particularly interested in trying to parse out the details of when you feel like using the general welfare clause to justify social spending. I'm simply pointing out that 1) your language suggests an ideological rigidity that you clearly don't exhibit, and 2) that American politicians prior to 1933 also failed to adhere to the 'consensus' you're imagining.

Again this was NOT social spending. This was reparations for a situation the government itself had created. You can parse it any way you like, but there is a huge difference between this temporary provision included in the War Dept. budget and for say food stamps or free breakfasts for school kids or any other social program you might wish to bring up. It is a failure to assess accurate history and a propensity to twist it to fit whatever social agenda that one might have that has significantly contributed to the steady chipping away at the Republic the Founders gave us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I make no case except that your obvious unthinking partisanship prevents you from adopting an unbiased view.
Your reply confirms it yet again.

Now...give me another insult...I dare ya!!!
I do suggest another cut-and-paste one though, as I suggested earlier, because your free-lance efforts are around 10 year-old level and I'm sure that isn't the image you're aiming for.

Did you think this a clever retort?

You sound like an idiot who has been wounded....

...and appears no more than a child looking for a high-sounding
way of saying 'I don't like you.'

Why not simply say 'I don't like you'?

I suppose because you realize the effect it would have....
...I'd be terribly upset.

Really...here's the link Google
Try searching for something like 'trying to sound grown-up insults'.

My remark was designed not so much to pierce as to sting…and I see it succeeded.

You posted a very stupid suggestion of analogy between democracy and communism.
Why not behave as an adult and either admit it, or, if that is the way you were brought up, simply wander off.

I try to give an intelligent post an intelligent response...an inane post gets what it deserves.


I don't see that our conversation has any journey left.
Do you?
Adieu.

 

[idb]

Did you think this a clever retort?

You sound like an idiot who has been wounded....

...and appears no more than a child looking for a high-sounding
way of saying 'I don't like you.'

Why not simply say 'I don't like you'?

I suppose because you realize the effect it would have....
...I'd be terribly upset.

Really...here's the link Google
Try searching for something like 'trying to sound grown-up insults'.

My remark was designed not so much to pierce as to sting…and I see it succeeded.

You posted a very stupid suggestion of analogy between democracy and communism.
Why not behave as an adult and either admit it, or, if that is the way you were brought up, simply wander off.

I try to give an intelligent post an intelligent response...an inane post gets what it deserves.


I don't see that our conversation has any journey left.
Do you?
Adieu.

Crikey...that was too easy.
Oh well.

 

[Dragon]

Two centerpiece acts of the First New Deal were struck down by the Supreme Court: the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act. However, Congress also passed legislation at roughly the same time granting relief to the unemployed both as open largesse and in the form of work-relief. These acts were never even seriously challenged as to their constitutionality.

The reason why the federal government did not involve itself in aid to the poor and unemployed prior to the Great Depression is not because it was believed to have no constitutional authority, but simply that by custom that was a state responsibility and there was no perceived need to make it a federal one. The Depression changed that by so greatly increasing the number of unemployed and at the same time reducing state tax revenues that the states were unable to handle the load.

 

[JDzBrain]

Every one?

Freedmen's Bureau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah...the Freedmen Bureau. Brought to you by the same SON OF A BITCH that started a war to collect taxes from the south! That was Lincoln's baby....which was the genesis for radical reconstruction. A beautiful piece of benevolence whose scares can STILL be seen in parts of the south.

But Lincoln was NOT one of the founders!

However, he wasn't the first president to break faith with the Constitution and commit errors that we are STILL dealing with the consequences of.

Thomas Jefferson knowingly and admittedly...illegally purchased the Louisiana territories from the French. He did get a good deal and it worked out for us at that time, but it was still unconstitutional.

On top of that, it pissed of the British, which he said he enjoyed, but it lead to another war with them. Plus, if he'd just waited, Napoleon would have been defeated quicker, the French empire fallen quicker and we would have likely inherited it for virtually nothing...which even our conservative Congress WOULD have approved.

Instead, we now have US presidents...as a matter of course...ILLEGALLY and covertly purchasing huge swaths of state lands using discretionary spending.

More than 80% of the state of Utah is already owned outright by the federal government. Hell, the fed owns more than 50% of ALL land west of Texas. Which IS unconstitutional by the manner of it's acquisition and prescribed scope for federal land ownership and a direct result of Jefferson's actions.

Because of the poorly thought out actions of Thomas Jefferson, the fed owns some of the most resource rich land in this country and environmentalist WACKOS inside the government make it nearly impossible for us as a nation or the state in which the lands lay to utilize them...even as outdoorsmen or sportsmen.

NOTHING good has ever or will ever come from our breaking faith with the Constitution!

You want to do your state a favor? Ask any representative if they will vote to sell state land to the federal government under any circumstance other than for DOD use. If they say yes...FIND A BETTER REPRESENTATIVE!

 

[regent]

The selling of federal lands was long a policy of the government. Perhaps the only time in our history the debt was paid off was by selling land. And not only did we sell the land cheap but it changed those lands into tax producers. Our railroads were given tremendous amounts of government lands, far more than needed to build their lines. But of course all this land giveaway was seen as a bonanza by speculators and they got into the mix and fortunes were made. Perhaps the greatest bonanza was the Tea Pot Dome thing. But like Friedman said, America runs on greed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again the Freedman's Act was a military project of reparations to solve a problem created by the military. It was not designed nor administered as a 'charitable act'.

Up until the New Deal, including FDR himself until he devised the New Deal, no U.S. President saw charity or benevolence as a prerogative of the U.S. federal government.

Some assorted quotations:

The Framers Speak:

Proof of intentional and strict limitations on the authority and power of Congress:
"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Even Hamilton, who advocated a looser interpretation than most of his fellow Founders, did not see an unlimited ability of the U.S. government to dispense charity:

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78



Spoken while serving as President...

While vetoing a social welfare charity bill in 1854, Franlin Pierce stated:
"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

And while vetoing a bill appropriating relief charity from public monies kin 1887, Grover Cleveland stated::
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt took to the podium on March 2, 1930 to talk about states rights as Governor of New York. In this speech, printed in entirity on March 3, 1930 by the New York Times, he said:

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments.

Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."

Of course Roosevelt violated his own principles two years later when he came up with the New Deal. A careful reading of history shows that a lot of those New Deal proposals were immediately declared unconstitutional by other national leaders.

Though not a President, this excerpt of a speech by Congressman Davy Crockett is recorded in the Libary of Congress:
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks."

 

[JDzBrain]

Semantically...you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT Foxy.

However, the practical effect of these men twisting the Constitution to fit their needs has a DIRECT lineage to things like the ATF we have today. The production of liquor was an age old tradition throughout our early history. Hell, George Washington produced shine. The problem came in when as president, Washington decided to place a DIRECT tax on liquor to fund the military. This was a result of a bad experience he had trying to pay his Army during the Revolutionary War. He had to pledge his wealth to keep them from walking off the battlefield because the states were slow to authorize their payments.

It worked and we won of course, but it left a scare that Washington carried to the presidency with him. From that tiny seed grew the MASSIVE regulations, laws and bureaucracy associated with the ATF and the STOLEN RIGHT of Americans to produce shine as they please.

And there are DOZENS of other examples like this and Jefferson.

THAT is why it is so important that we recognize our mistakes and reclaim this country to it's foundings and the principles expressed in the Federalist Paper exerts you posted.

If we don't....this Republic is DOOMED!

Oh, and regent. It's not the selling of federal lands that was and is the problem. The Congress has the VERY defined constitutional power to depose of federal lands under Section 8, Powers of Congress, clause 17.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

However, the president does NOT have that power...AT ALL inside the US. And the congress does not have the power to lock huge swaths of state lands from it's people for purposes other than those defined in that clause...even WITH the consent of the state in which it shall be!

It's not the sales...it's the spending tax dollars from the states to buy states land for unconstitutional purposes that's the problem!

But you are dead on, Friedman had if right. But hey, fortunately we ARE a capitalist society. ;~)

 

[Dante]

...

Incidently, try and find the clause in the Constitution that says the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, the Court just assumed that responsiblity and bingo by that one little act look at what has happened.

The people who framed the our constitution assumed the Court had a certain role. The US Constitution is NOT the sacred word of some god, nor is it what most people claim it to be.

"...judicial review had its origins in early seventeen-century England and had been asserted by James Otis in the period leading up to the American Revolution..."

- John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and Judicial Review

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body..."

—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

—Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

 

[Dante]

...
I realize that's what James Madison argued in vetoing an appropriations bill he disapproved of, and perhaps it's what he would have preferred the language to say, but if so his intent did not prevail at the convention, because that's not what the language actually DOES say.

The intent, the language?

Madison himself once said if people wanted to know the intent of the wording in the constitution, people should not look to him or others (framers or founding fathers), but to the ratifiers, and what they thought words meant and the intent was.

Who were the ratifiers? The people of the states who as a national body, ratified the document

 

[Dante]

The Constitution is but a very short framework for government. No document of its length can spell out every detail, some state constitutions try to do that and some have six hundred amendments or so. The national Constitution has 27 amendments, but has been interpreted thousands of times by simple tradition, by useage and Court intrpretations. Conservatives often try to use the Constituton as their anchor to impede changes and it hasn't always worked. As Justice Hughes said, The Constitution is what the Court say it is.

Incidently, try and find the clause in the Constitution that says the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, the Court just assumed that responsiblity and bingo by that one little act look at what has happened.

Every judicial decision must be authorized by the Constitution.
Every single one.

Any decision not so decided is a rogue decision.

"All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation, Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original Constitution and by later amending it."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist.


He went on to say, in that essay, that any judges or Justices who decide
based on other than the Constitution:

"Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

The language of the Constitution...not the text. Language has meaning and contains nuance. Texualists, originalists, and strict constructionists, all mistake their own views for purist readings of more than just the text in the Constitution.

Madison himself took conflicting positions on issues of the day, while he represented both he and Jefferson's battles with the Federalists and Chief Justice Marshall (Jefferson's cousin). The main framer of the document was all over the place.

go figure

dD

 

[Dante]

Every judicial decision must be authorized by the Constitution.
Every single one.

Any decision not so decided is a rogue decision.

Oh, really? And who gets to decide whether a judicial decision is "authorized by the Constitution" or not?

You?

Let me give you the instruction you so dearly require.

1. The people are the holders of all power in the United States of America.

2. They delegate same by elections.

3. The Congress passes laws they deem constitutional; by signing a law, it is assumed that the President agrees to the constitutionality.

4. Those laws brought to the Court must be judged by the language of the Constitution.

5. If there is no specific unconstitutionality that can be pointed to vis-a-vis the US Constitution, the law must be found constitutional.

a. This obviates any belief that Justices have a view superior to the US Constitution.

6. Changes can be made only through the amendment process.


Don't you feel smarter now?

1) D'Oh!

2) Captain Obvious Strikes Again

3) What a crock of sheet. You assume when you feel like it, yet in other posts you knock assumptions? Here you are woefully ignorant of human nature and the nature of politics. Stick with theoretical bullcrap.

4) By the meaning of the language.

5) otay

6) STFU you moron

 

[regent]

Is a law not reviewed by the Court constitutional?

Are we obeying laws today that are possibly unconstitutional?

So where in the Constitution is it written that the Supreme Court will interpret the Constitution?

If the Constitution did not give the interpretation power to the Court, is the Court breaking the law when it declares a law unconstitutional?

Was Justice Hughes correct when he said the Constitution is what the Court say it is?

 

[Outback]

It's still there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution is but a very short framework for government. No document of its length can spell out every detail, some state constitutions try to do that and some have six hundred amendments or so. The national Constitution has 27 amendments, but has been interpreted thousands of times by simple tradition, by useage and Court intrpretations. Conservatives often try to use the Constituton as their anchor to impede changes and it hasn't always worked. As Justice Hughes said, The Constitution is what the Court say it is.

Incidently, try and find the clause in the Constitution that says the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, the Court just assumed that responsiblity and bingo by that one little act look at what has happened.

Every judicial decision must be authorized by the Constitution.
Every single one.

Any decision not so decided is a rogue decision.

"All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation, Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original Constitution and by later amending it."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist.


He went on to say, in that essay, that any judges or Justices who decide
based on other than the Constitution:

"Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

The language of the Constitution...not the text. Language has meaning and contains nuance. Texualists, originalists, and strict constructionists, all mistake their own views for purist readings of more than just the text in the Constitution.

Madison himself took conflicting positions on issues of the day, while he represented both he and Jefferson's battles with the Federalists and Chief Justice Marshall (Jefferson's cousin). The main framer of the document was all over the place.

go figure

dD

Of course you show a lack of understanding of the view of an originalist....
....let me help:


1. Originalists begin with the belief that ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men, or of judges, and this book addresses that question of judicial philosophy.

a. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.


2. Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law.
Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

a. There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.


3. Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.

4. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Randy Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’


b. Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes: “The Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Correct? Or hubris?

 

[Dante]

Every judicial decision must be authorized by the Constitution.
Every single one.

Any decision not so decided is a rogue decision.

"All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation, Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original Constitution and by later amending it."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist.


He went on to say, in that essay, that any judges or Justices who decide
based on other than the Constitution:

"Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

The language of the Constitution...not the text. Language has meaning and contains nuance. Texualists, originalists, and strict constructionists, all mistake their own views for purist readings of more than just the text in the Constitution.

Madison himself took conflicting positions on issues of the day, while he represented both he and Jefferson's battles with the Federalists and Chief Justice Marshall (Jefferson's cousin). The main framer of the document was all over the place.

go figure

dD

Of course you show a lack of understanding of the view of an originalist....
....let me help:


1. Originalists begin with the belief that ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men, or of judges, and this book addresses that question of judicial philosophy.

a. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.


2. Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law.
Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

a. There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.


3. Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.

4. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Randy Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’


b. Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes: “The Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Correct? Or hubris?

1) Originalists do NOT own the idea that "ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men..."

2) Original intent? Madison himself said look for original intent from the understanding of ratifiers (the people as opposed to state legislatures or congress) and not the framers.

What exactly did Thomas Paine have to do with the Constitution that makes his words worthier than the words of others? and you mention 'original meaning of the text' which seems like a voodoo attempt to divine what a supposedly reasonable person of the past would have understood a word (as opposed to idea?) to have meant.

a. there are always different understandings of words and terms where people are concerned. In law we may attempt top enforce agreement, but if we take Madison at his word we should be looking to what the intentions of people collectively were, not some legal meaning of the text itself, which itself can be liberal or conservative.

3) We the people give our consent. How about those the people who gave consent before us? What they intended is what we intend? What if we disagree with the people of the past who consented to be governed in a different way? Do we have to obey the Constitution and go the amendment route, or do we announce our right to refuse to be governed by the intent of the past and an old document? Your arguments lead down a very slippery slope where anarchy attains legitimacy. Just speak with a few of the sovereign people crowd. I met a few at occupy meetings -- nuts!

4) One professor and Justice Thomas say ... I guess it's case closed, eh?

a. then you disagree with Madison and Hamilton, and your authority rests with Justice Thomas?

b. Chief Justice Hughes may have been correct even while being afflicted with hubris, the two things are not exclusive of one another.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The language of the Constitution...not the text. Language has meaning and contains nuance. Texualists, originalists, and strict constructionists, all mistake their own views for purist readings of more than just the text in the Constitution.

Madison himself took conflicting positions on issues of the day, while he represented both he and Jefferson's battles with the Federalists and Chief Justice Marshall (Jefferson's cousin). The main framer of the document was all over the place.

go figure

dD

Of course you show a lack of understanding of the view of an originalist....
....let me help:


1. Originalists begin with the belief that ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men, or of judges, and this book addresses that question of judicial philosophy.

a. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.


2. Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law.
Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

a. There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.


3. Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.

4. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Randy Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’


b. Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes: “The Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Correct? Or hubris?

1) Originalists do NOT own the idea that "ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men..."

2) Original intent? Madison himself said look for original intent from the understanding of ratifiers (the people as opposed to state legislatures or congress) and not the framers.

What exactly did Thomas Paine have to do with the Constitution that makes his words worthier than the words of others? and you mention 'original meaning of the text' which seems like a voodoo attempt to divine what a supposedly reasonable person of the past would have understood a word (as opposed to idea?) to have meant.

a. there are always different understandings of words and terms where people are concerned. In law we may attempt top enforce agreement, but if we take Madison at his word we should be looking to what the intentions of people collectively were, not some legal meaning of the text itself, which itself can be liberal or conservative.

3) We the people give our consent. How about those the people who gave consent before us? What they intended is what we intend? What if we disagree with the people of the past who consented to be governed in a different way? Do we have to obey the Constitution and go the amendment route, or do we announce our right to refuse to be governed by the intent of the past and an old document? Your arguments lead down a very slippery slope where anarchy attains legitimacy. Just speak with a few of the sovereign people crowd. I met a few at occupy meetings -- nuts!

4) One professor and Justice Thomas say ... I guess it's case closed, eh?

a. then you disagree with Madison and Hamilton, and your authority rests with Justice Thomas?

b. Chief Justice Hughes may have been correct even while being afflicted with hubris, the two things are not exclusive of one another.

". there are always different understandings of words and terms where people are concerned. In law we may attempt top enforce agreement, but if we take Madison at his word we should be looking to what the intentions of people collectively were, not some legal meaning of the text itself, which itself can be liberal or conservative."


I believe we can short-circuit this discussion in the following way:
If there is any debate about the meaning, the text- which is more important than any interpretation- the constitutionality must be tied to the actual language of the Constitution.

If that is not possible, then, a) the law must be found constitutional or
b) the Constitution must be amended to incorporate the view.

But...under no circumstances can any judge or Justice be allowed to replace the Constitution with his or her ideology.