who would support a return to a constitutionly sound government?

[Avatar4321]

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

The Supreme Court is not the authority of the Constitution. The actual text of the Constitution is. And it never grants the Supreme Court authority over it. The Supreme Court is one of three coequal branches that has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. You are completely naive if you think that those who have held the office have always lived up to their oath.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to amend the Constitution by fiat, yet, they do so all the time. There are only two ways to amend the Constitution. Neither of those ways is through the Supreme Court.

 

[Avatar4321]

If its unconstitutional,, then challenge it to the SCOTUS. I'm sick of non-constitutional lawyers and experts on it claiming everything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. Well, if you believe so much, challenge the laws and let SCOTUS rule, which is what the CONSTITUTION states. And there is plenty of money in politics and political organizations that can fund a challenge of constitutionality.

Lame response. This is a political message board. The purpose is to debate topics, not deflect from them when they become uncomfortable.

if its unconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule it so, so not deflecting anyway.

And we know what this board is, its for people to rant and rave and whine and attack the opposition, and you've set a great tone for that here.

Way to not address anything I mentioned though, typical

So when the Supreme Court said Segregation was constitutional, it was correct?

 

[antagon]

So what if Hamilton would have disagreed? I don't agree with a LOT of Hamilton and neither does the Constitution.

My interpretation literal. That makes it right. Reading stuff into it that isn't there is wrong. Pretty simple.

Ahh, but my interpretation is also literal, as I read it.

And I read "Provide for the General Welfare" to mean "Provide for the General Welfare".

Now, I respect your interpretation as a valid point of argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

The problem I have is when people imply that my interpretation of the Constitution is somehow invalid, even though I'm simply taking the text at face value. That somehow I am trying to "destroy the Constitution" when in fact I am trying my best to abide by what I honestly think the text means.

where does the general welfare clause allow stealing from one set of people to help out another?

that's all the tax/spend clause says. just what do you think tax is, blu?

 

[Avatar4321]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

The People.

 

[antagon]

the people. that sounds stupid, avatar. really.

 

[Avatar4321]

Apparently Gunny's hands

Get to the part where you can address the topic, huh? Being attacked personally by a dweeb doesn't phase me.

you call me sheep after I put a well reasoned argument, and then claim I don't have a point and am just attacking you? I say apparently Gunny's hand, and you say I'm attacking you?

probably why you are an admin on a forum, all the others would of kicked you off for being such a POS troll

You know, people who have well reasoned argumnets don't have to always announce they have well reasoned arguments. The arguments speak on their own merits. And if someone disagrees with their arguments, they can defend their points on the merits or have the intellectual honesty to admit that they were indeed incorrect about something.

It's only the people who are completely insecure in their positions that need to say they have "well reasoned" arguments every time someone disagrees with them and points out the flaws in their arguments.

Socrates stated that True Wisdom comes in knowing that you know nothing.

Eastern philosophersa for millinia have started that you cannot learn until you empty your cup.

Jn Christian belief, knowledge comes after having humility to be taught.

I would encourage you to ponder these things in the future. It would make you a much better communicator.

 

[Avatar4321]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Easy, you have the other branches of government do what the Supreme Court has abdicated. And that is follow the Constitution. Because if they follow the Constitution, the Supreme Court never hears a case and cant corrupt the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Evidently, they want constitutional law to be determined by the message board. They seem to think that is what the founding fathers intended

No we want Constitutional law to be determined by *gasp* the United States Constitution.

Words mean something. The people and the States did not delegate the Federal Government certain powers for a reason. A limited Federal government is designed to prevent tyranny.

Why you guys seem to think there is no limits on what washington can do or should do is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would certainly support a return to constitutionally sound government. I would also add a restoration of the Senate being an arm of the State legislatures as the Constitution intended. Without the check of the States in place, we easily lose Federalism.

Also, I'd point out the ending government foreign aid doesnt end foreign aid because countless charitable organizations give far more than the government ever has and far more efficiently as well.

how is that possible? the gov gives away hundreds of billions if trillions a year in foreign aid. charity cant match that.

We arent giving away trillions a year. And Americans give more through charity than the Federal Government. And if the Federal Government isnt making them work until Aprl 9th each year to pay off their taxes, there will be much more money in the hands of the people to provide for charity.

 

[Dr Gregg]

so, when did you graduate law school? How long have you've been studying constitutional law and made judgements on it? Since you seem to think you know more than the highest judges and biggest experts on the constitution, the Supreme Court justices.

1) 2007

2) Seriously? about 10 years I suppose.

3) Why on earth does getting appointed to a position make someone "the biggest experts"?

You need to stop exalting certain men simply because of their position and actually look at the merits of what they are saying and doing.

For one, wasn't talking to you.

Second, doesn't matter what you or I think, since the Constitution states that the only people that matter in deciding those are the Supreme Court justices. That's the crux of my point. Claiming SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional goes against the constitution.

 

[Dr Gregg]

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Evidently, they want constitutional law to be determined by the message board. They seem to think that is what the founding fathers intended

No we want Constitutional law to be determined by *gasp* the United States Constitution.

Words mean something. The people and the States did not delegate the Federal Government certain powers for a reason. A limited Federal government is designed to prevent tyranny.

Why you guys seem to think there is no limits on what washington can do or should do is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain it.

And the Constitution states that SCOTUS determines when laws are unconstitutional.

I may not agree with everything they rule on, but they are following the constitution.

 

[rdean]

Hey, I'm with you guys. Screw old people and disabled Americans. So they end up homeless and in the street, good. How constitutional.

Just get rid of government and the military all together. They did that once before in Poland. How well did that work out?

Are you people really so stupid? So insane?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Hey, I'm with you guys. Screw old people and disabled Americans. So they end up homeless and in the street, good. How constitutional.

Just get rid of government and the military all together. They did that once before in Poland. How well did that work out?

Are you people really so stupid? So insane?

I often wonder what the hell they taught in their schools regarding the constitution. ANd regardless of what they think the founders intended, that's not what the history of this country suggests.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Evidently, they want constitutional law to be determined by the message board. They seem to think that is what the founding fathers intended

No we want Constitutional law to be determined by *gasp* the United States Constitution.

.

Then tell us how you want to do that. Since obviously you don't want the current process, tell how you want it done so it will be different.

 

[rightwinger]

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Evidently, they want constitutional law to be determined by the message board. They seem to think that is what the founding fathers intended

No we want Constitutional law to be determined by *gasp* the United States Constitution.

Words mean something. The people and the States did not delegate the Federal Government certain powers for a reason. A limited Federal government is designed to prevent tyranny.

Why you guys seem to think there is no limits on what washington can do or should do is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain it.

Yes they did delegate..they delegated the role of interpreting the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Unless you missed it, the meaning of the words in that document have been debated for centuries.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Evidently, they want constitutional law to be determined by the message board. They seem to think that is what the founding fathers intended

No we want Constitutional law to be determined by *gasp* the United States Constitution.

Words mean something. The people and the States did not delegate the Federal Government certain powers for a reason. A limited Federal government is designed to prevent tyranny.

Why you guys seem to think there is no limits on what washington can do or should do is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain it.

Yes they did delegate..they delegated the role of interpreting the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Unless you missed it, the meaning of the words in that document have been debated for centuries.

Yup, and if the laws were not up for interpretation, the Constitution would never had a Supreme Court branch of the government. It's the beauty of the Constitution and why its the best government in the world IMO. they had the foresight to account for the changing times

If that was not the intention, maybe those opposed to SCOTUS can tell us what the point of SCOTUS was if not to interpret the Constitution?

 

[blu]

Hey, I'm with you guys. Screw old people and disabled Americans. So they end up homeless and in the street, good. How constitutional.

Just get rid of government and the military all together. They did that once before in Poland. How well did that work out?

Are you people really so stupid? So insane?

so you think following the constitution would leave people dying in the streets and rid of the miilitary? that is pretty sad. no one said get rid of the military, we said use it for its constitutional purpose, that being defense.

 

[Claudette]

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

According to what is right, I am not wrong. The government perpetuating itself is NOT a Constitutional right. The Supreme Court ruling the Federal government is right to perpetuate itself doesn't make it right.

According to the constitution, you are wrong, that's the way the government is set up, SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, not based on what citizens opinions are.

Maybe you need to try and amend the constitution

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have poor people, old people, deadbeats and freeloaders back in the days of the FF's???

Don't think I have ever read or heard about the Fed Govt shelling out the public largesse to take care of anyone back when the Constitution was written. Seems to me that if its supposed to be Constitutional via the GW clause it would have been done back in the day. After all. The FF wrote the Constitution back in the day. Apparantly the FF's didn't consider it Constitutional or we would have heard about it in letters, etc.

Seems it wasn't considered Constitutional until the 30's. Go figure.

 

[GilbertArizona]

I'd support it but I haven't given it much thought what needs to be done in terms of the federal courts to make possible our keeping it?

To bad our states don't get together on matters. If there is widespread support amoung them on an issue, than 40 of them can change the Constitution without the involvement of anybody in Washington D.C.

 

[antagon]

According to what is right, I am not wrong. The government perpetuating itself is NOT a Constitutional right. The Supreme Court ruling the Federal government is right to perpetuate itself doesn't make it right.

According to the constitution, you are wrong, that's the way the government is set up, SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, not based on what citizens opinions are.

Maybe you need to try and amend the constitution

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have poor people, old people, deadbeats and freeloaders back in the days of the FF's???

Don't think I have ever read or heard about the Fed Govt shelling out the public largesse to take care of anyone back when the Constitution was written. Seems to me that if its supposed to be Constitutional via the GW clause it would have been done back in the day. After all. The FF wrote the Constitution back in the day. Apparantly the FF's didn't consider it Constitutional or we would have heard about it in letters, etc.

Seems it wasn't considered Constitutional until the 30's. Go figure.

maybe its not struck you that if the US still operated with the level of infrastructure we had in the 18th century, that we'd be taking a back seat to bangladesh today. the 'what would madison do' brigade never takes account of the last 200 years, just the first 10.