• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Constitutional question

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Carmen813 said:
The second amendment is a good example. It was written with the idea that an armed citizenry would act to prevent a tyrannical government. Unfortunately modern technology has basically this original concept invalid, and instead the 2nd amendment as used today is to justify individuals owning a gun. One of the key points was supposed to be an armed and organized militia, which in the 1800s could have beat the federal army.
Click to expand...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
 
Carmen813 said:
It also doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
ROFL.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Click to expand...
What part of all cases do you not understand?
 
Carmen813 said:
I interpreted his posts to say "the concept of welfare didn't even exist, therefore this must be unconstitutional" and I am pointing out the flaw I see in that logic.

Did the fact that I used the word feel bother you? I could just have easily used the word with "think." The essence of what I said is exactly the same.

I'd also urge you to think about the larger picture of what you are saying, because there are a great deal of things in the Constitution that have been changed "as we know it today." The second amendment is a good example. It was written with the idea that an armed citizenry would act to prevent a tyrannical government. Unfortunately modern technology has basically this original concept invalid, and instead the 2nd amendment as used today is to justify individuals owning a gun. One of the key points was supposed to be an armed and organized militia, which in the 1800s could have beat the federal army.

There is also nothing in the Constitution that would grant anyone in our government the power to indefinitely lock up terrorists or to refuse to charge them and give them trials. The Constitution specifically says "persons" in the 5th amendment for this very reason, but many ignore it.

It says nothing about having a standing army or navy in times of peace, makes no mention of the Air Force whatsoever, and is pretty much completely opposed to the idea of fighting a war without having Congress declare it.

It also doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

:roll; I swear....

He is correct. The concept of "welfare" as we know it today did not exist. Yes, there were forms of it, but not as we know it now. Sheesh.

To leftists, "feel" and "think" are quite similar as their "thinking" has an emotional base instead of logical.

The "as we know it today" is specifically about the words and language used, you twit. Sheesh. Yes, we already know you leftists want to claim it's outdated and other such things but it's clearly not. The 2nd Amendment is the perfect example of how it's not outdated at all. James Madison was quite clear about all of this - I should think you on the left need to read a bit about his position as well as others of that time period.

So since you want to pull twisted examples out - are you suggesting you support the idea of an Originalist(read correct) reading of the Constitution? Strictly put - much of what our Federal gov't has done and continues to do is outside the scope of it's charge. Some of us are trying to prevent it from going further while some of you are cheering it on.
 
CADsortaGUY said:
So since you want to pull twisted examples out - are you suggesting you support the idea of an Originalist(read correct) reading of the Constitution? Strictly put - much of what our Federal gov't has done and continues to do is outside the scope of it's charge. Some of us are trying to prevent it from going further while some of you are cheering it on.
Click to expand...

Good statement.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The Constitution has been dead for a long time. Every Supreme Court, Congress and President since then has been guilty of fvcking a dead horse.

Just close your eyes and repeat, "There is no slippery slope, there is no slippery slope."

I think it was Jefferson who thought that we should re-write the Constitution every 20 years. I agree. Then we would see the Law of the Land for what it is, as opposed to the bastardized lip-service document it has become.
 
nick1985 said:
Serious question...I'm not trying to sound like a dick or anything, but can you point me to where it says man or men in the consitution? I browsed and did not come across it, I could have easily overlooked though.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the Declaration of Independence.
 
nonlnear said:
ROFL.What part of all cases do you not understand?
Click to expand...

The power of judicial review is not in the Constitution, and did not exist until the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury vs. Madison. I am saying that a plain text reading of the Constitution does not explicitly give that power the to judicial branch. I'm not saying I think that is a problem, but that there is a flaw in assuming that the only powers the federal government has are the ones explicitly stated on the Constitution. It started out that way, but in practice it hasn't been how it's been used, by both liberals and conservatives. I get the feeling we're talking about two sides of the same coin.

Cad,
You may think you are being all spock-like at the moment, but your posts are quite obviously driven by anger. I'm pretty sure anyone reading them can see that. You've certainly gone out of your way to be rude to me.

I do not support the "originalist," as you put it, interpretation of the Constitution. In my view, human society has advanced faster during the past 150 years than any other time in history. I believe the Constitutions inherent strength is that it is very flexibility. I don't believe that flexibility should be used to give the federal government infinite power, but that it does allow our government the ability to adapt to changing needs such as those faced by terrorism or the rapid advances in modern medicine.

My point was that if you do indeed subscribe to an "originalist" view of the Constitution then I would hope for some ideological purity. Which means that you would subscribe to that view all the time, not situationally.

I use the word "feel" a lot because I am currently training to be a Mental Health Counselor. My use of that word has changed mostly because of that. For what it's worth, I do not consider myself a progressive. Hell, I don't even consider myself a liberal unless you are using a very old definition of that word.
 
her209 said:
LOL... I thought the current discussion at hand was about definitions of words at the time. Sorry if I'm mistaken.
Click to expand...

Sorry you are incorrect. But feel free to discuss any other words/meanings that you feel may differ now than what they meant in the Constitution. This thread was about the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independance, not the Gettysburg Address, not the Articles of Confederation, not the Bible, nor the Koran, nor the Northern Star newspaper of the time.

Remember, we are talking about the Constitution. Sorry for your confusion.
 
nick1985 said:
Sorry you are incorrect. But feel free to discuss any other words/meanings that you feel may differ now than what they meant in the Constitution. This thread was about the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independance, not the Gettysburg Address, not the Articles of Confederation, not the Bible, nor the Koran, nor the Northern Star newspaper of the time.

Remember, we are talking about the Constitution. Sorry for your confusion.
Click to expand...
LOL... ok

😉
 
Carmen813 said:
The power of judicial review is not in the Constitution, and did not exist until the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury vs. Madison. I am saying that a plain text reading of the Constitution does not explicitly give that power the to judicial branch.
Click to expand...
No, it always was there by virtue of the fact that it wasn't anywhere else. (i.e. If no body is established with the power to review constitutionality, then the constitution has no effective power over Congress.) Judicial review is simply a fancy word for making facial rulings. The style is a little different, but in effect it is the same thing. If a law can not be construed in any way to be constitutional, then the body which has the power to hear cases under the superior body of law implicitly has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. If SCOTUS did not have this one power, then all of its judicial power would be void.

The fact that a President found an attorney willing to make a case that SCOTUS ought to implicitly vacate all of its powers does not give that argument any implicit merit. It only emphasizes the well known truth that no matter how incredulous an argument is, there is always a lawyer of any given office who is willing to make the case. That is, after all, the nature of their profession.
 
nonlnear said:
No, it always was there by virtue of the fact that it wasn't anywhere else...
/snip
Click to expand...

And thus the slippery slope began. I'm not saying judicial review is wrong, but I'm trying to draw a line between the two concepts for you. How do you justify one and not the other?
 
Carmen813 said:
And thus the slippery slope began.
Click to expand...
I inserted a more detailed explanation with an edit. I don't know if you read my post before it got in or not.

I was not making a claim that the power of judicial review needed to be invented or discovered. Not by a long shot! Only that if there was no power of judicial review, then the vesting of "all judicial power" would be implicitly void. The other angle (that judicial review is simply a different style of facial ruling) stands separately whether you accept the first argument or not.
 
Carmen813 said:
And thus the slippery slope began. I'm not saying judicial review is wrong, but I'm trying to draw a line between the two concepts for you. How do you justify one and not the other?
Click to expand...

Consider a Constitution which is identical to the existing one but has an explicit clause added that no court may declare a law unconstitutional. If that is the case, then what would happen if Congress passed a law saying that "Excessive bail shall be required, and excessive fines imposed, and cruel and unusual punishments inflicted...."

Would such a court have the power to make a facial ruling against this law? If so then you have created a power of judicial review. If not, then does the Constitution have any power over Congress at all?
 
nonlnear said:
Consider a Constitution which is identical to the existing one but has an explicit clause added that no court may declare a law unconstitutional. If that is the case, then what would happen if Congress passed a law saying that "Excessive bail shall be required, and excessive fines imposed, and cruel and unusual punishments inflicted...."

Would such a court have the power to make a facial ruling against this law? If so then you have created a power of judicial review. If not, then does the Constitution have any power over Congress at all?
Click to expand...

I understand the problem with a lack of judicial review, which is why I believe it should exist. The question I'm trying to ask is that, no matter what logic you use, on some level you are taking the leap of faith that the Supreme Court (part of the federal government) will not abuse this power.

The irony of this entire thread is that guys like Cad are trying so hard to pain a picture of "us vs. them, left vs. right" that they ignore the fact that the extreme left and right agree on this issue. The far left believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it violates individual choice, the same reason they support abortion. Each side agrees on the outcome, just not the way they justify it.

For what it's worth, I believe it's probably unconstitutional.

The difference is that from a matter of policy, which is what Congress is supposed to do, I see no responsible way to eliminate things like pre-existing conditions without a mandate. Simply banning these practices without forcing more people into the insurance pool would have the effect of destroying the private market. I believe that Congress should pass the best policy it can, and I believe it has.

I leave it to the Supreme Court to resolve the potential Constitutional questions. I have faith that the Supreme Court will make the correct and right decision, no matter what the decision is.

And with that, I'm off to work.
 
Carmen813 said:
I understand the problem with a lack of judicial review, which is why I believe it should exist. The question I'm trying to ask is that, no matter what logic you use, on some level you are taking the leap of faith that the Supreme Court (part of the federal government) will not abuse this power.
Click to expand...
That is the exact same leap of faith made in giving it any other judicial power. The judiciary is the one body which is unaccountable - and must be for it to function in the tradition of independence. Whether a society needs an independent judiciary is a separate question, but I haven't seen a compelling alternative.
The irony of this entire thread is that guys like Cad are trying so hard to pain a picture of "us vs. them, left vs. right" that they ignore the fact that the extreme left and right agree on this issue. The far left believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it violates individual choice, the same reason they support abortion. Each side agrees on the outcome, just not the way they justify it.
Click to expand...
That is why I despise the statist powers entrenched on both sides of the aisle.
For what it's worth, I believe it's probably unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
That's quite an idealistic take on things, given the pragmatic reality of SCOTUS cases. It's not about truth or values; all you need is five votes. 😛
 
Patranus said:
If the constitutional was intended to be a "living" document, why did the framers include a process to amend it?
Click to expand...

I think you might want to reframe this question, because it sort of answers itself. A process was created to amend it so that future generations could change it if they wanted to. The amendment process itself doesn't necessarily lead to good policy, the ban on prohibition should show that.
 
Carmen813 said:
I think you might want to reframe this question, because it sort of answers itself. A process was created to amend it so that future generations could change it if they wanted to. The amendment process itself doesn't necessarily lead to good policy, the ban on prohibition should show that.
Click to expand...

That's why it's hard to Amend, so it doesn't just flow with the political wind. It is a CAGE, not a living document. You must live within it's framework or amend it - it's just that simple yet it seems the left just doesn't want to accept it.
 
CADsortaGUY said:
That's why it's hard to Amend, so it doesn't just flow with the political wind. It is a CAGE, not a living document. You must live within it's framework or amend it - it's just that simple yet it seems the left just doesn't want to accept it.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's not isolated to the left. Hell, it's not even necessarily everyone on the left. A large portion of people on the left are against the individual mandate. I'm against on principle, but not as a matter of policy. Both sides are guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top