FINALLY A NEW ADMINISTRATION

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
the 'mudge
Posts: 14837
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:37 pm

Pulp, in defense of your "living document" argument, you said...
Things change. Even the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must necessarily change as the times change.


Look, I really don't have an issue with changing as circumstances change. My issue is that of simply "reinterpreting" the clear intention of the framers. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution if, in fact, it is obsolescent or not effective for changing times. It is called "amending". Any act to "reinterpret" without using this process is a perversion of the intent. The reason this is done in this manner is not because it's inefficient (which, I agree, is to some extent, true) but because in many of these cases, there is no way they would reach the ratification threshold needed. This, then, is an end around to usurp power that is due, not the Federal government, but the people.

It is, in my mind, a criminal act of tyranny, for which there is no mechanism to punish except through, as Thomas Jefferson once suggested, revolution.
I certainly do not advocate such actions, but I can understand the motivation of those who do.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:38 pm

Countertrey wrote:Pulp, in defense of your "living document" argument, you said...
Things change. Even the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must necessarily change as the times change.


Look, I really don't have an issue with changing as circumstances change. My issue is that of simply "reinterpreting" the clear intention of the framers. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution if, in fact, it is obsolescent or not effective for changing times. It is called "amending". Any act to "reinterpret" without using this process is a perversion of the intent. The reason this is done in this manner is not because it's inefficient (which, I agree, is to some extent, true) but because in many of these cases, there is no way they would reach the ratification threshold needed. This, then, is an end around to usurp power that is due, not the Federal government, but the people.

It is, in my mind, a criminal act of tyranny, for which there is no mechanism to punish except through, as Thomas Jefferson once suggested, revolution.
I certainly do not advocate such actions, but I can understand the motivation of those who do.


I found this in the Constitution:

The Founding Fathers wrote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress


What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4617
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:00 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...


Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:22 am

PulpExposure wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...


Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

My strawman? You argued the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote because "things change." How is it "my" strawman?

I love the (lack of) logic practiced by lawyers.

- When I argue the Court is changing the Constitution, you argue Judicial review of the Constitution. I see Pulp, your argument is that enforcement of law is equivalent to the right to unilaterally change the law? As a logical exercise, your logic gives Bush the right to warrantless wiretap. I bet you don't even see that. You're plenty smart, but it's brains (you have) versus religion (you also have), religion always wins that war.

- But let's ignore that logical fallacy and assume that enforcement does equal right to "reinterpret" (:roll:). Your argument the Supreme Court has it is based on that...the...Supreme Court...gave it to themselves!

ROTFALMAO

I hate religion. I bet in no other subject, including non political aspects of the law would you make such retarded arguments. But harrykirshna, harrykirshna..
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4617
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:17 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...


Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

My strawman? You argued the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote because "things change." How is it "my" strawman?


Because that's not what I've said. At all. Where have I said that "the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote"?

Please find that statement.

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:05 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...


Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

My strawman? You argued the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote because "things change." How is it "my" strawman?


Because that's not what I've said. At all. Where have I said that "the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote"?

Please find that statement.

Actually, if you read the quotes in this post your response to my point of 5/9 was in it. What else were you looking for? Clearly times change, which is why the Supreme Court gave us 2/3 of each Chamber and 3/4 the legislature, not 5/9 decree by the Supreme Court that "times changed." Your gun example was an excellent one. If "times changed" then a Constitutional Amendment should be introduced. Until then...
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11173
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Re: FINALLY A NEW ADMINISTRATION

Postby Irn-Bru » Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:04 am

Skinsfan55 wrote:After 8 years of dismantling domestic security, of needlessly stirring up the situation in the middle east, of trampling on the constitution, of absolutely running this country in the ground...


Every once in a while, as new stories break, I remember that this thread happened. LOL
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:06 am

New administration, same people really in charge.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

08 Champ
Posts: 13928
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: New England

Postby SkinsJock » Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:29 pm

and despite the promise of "change" - nothing really changed and we're really not any better off - IMHO :twisted:
The Redskins need to change to improve - we need a better GM and we need to do a better job of who we bring in to coach and play here - players and coaches need to be held accountable when they do not do their jobs well

DarthMonk
Posts: 4648
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:41 pm

I could be wrong but I think "Judicial Review" is a power the court simply assumed and it's now an entrenched tradition. I do not believe the power of "Judicial Review" is spelled out anywhere in the constitution. Anyone know more about this?

PulpExposure wrote:Thankfully, Bush's idea of executive power isn't the one that has won out.


I think it was more Cheney's idea. He thought the presidency should have more power and he worked hard to make it so. It's unlikely future presidents will surrender the extra power Cheney finagled.

Perhaps the most loaded issue in history:

CounterTrey wrote:I am not anti abortion (which is not the same thing as being "pro-abortion"... I find the practice reprehensible -snip-


Same here.

CounterTrey wrote:and the ultimate liberal hypocracy)...


Plenty of hypocrisy on both sides here.

Even a libertarian can go either way on this one. One can say human rights do not accrue at conception whence a woman has a right to do what she wants. Another can say human rights do accrue at conception whence abortion is tantamount to murder - the ultimate stripping away of rights.

If one does believe human rights accrue at conception then there is no reason to make exceptions for rape or incest. That is very hypocritical. If the fetus obtains human rights at the moment of conception then who supplied the semen is irrelevant. I have yet to hear this last point addressed in high level "debates."
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

Skins History Buff
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby welch » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:49 pm

DarthMonk wrote:I could be wrong but I think "Judicial Review" is a power the court simply assumed and it's now an entrenched tradition. I do not believe the power of "Judicial Review" is spelled out anywhere in the constitution. Anyone know more about this?



Not in the Constitution. As mentioned above, asserted by John Marshall, a Federalist leading the Supreme Court after the Jeffersonians won the election of 1800, and all the following elections until the Federalists faded away.

I found -- history major that I was before becoming a computer programmer -- that the Court usually follows public opinion. When large majority of Americans think one way, the court rules that way.

Example: Plessy / Ferguson contradicted the three Civil War amendments. Didn't matter: Jim Crow was popular, so the Court backed it. (One contrary example: the Court blocked most of Hoover's attempts to plan a recovery from the Great Depression, and did the same to FDR). The 1954 Brown decision agreed with most people: time to end segregation.

I think the same thing has happened with gay rights: the country has become more tolerant (younger people, especially); surverys show that between 5% and 10% of people are "homosexual"; children even of important Republan officials are gay (Liz Cheney) and advisors and donors to both parties. Campaign manager for George W. Bush, for instance.

The decision on the Voting Rights Act was a surprising back-track, but if a couple of the Bush I or II appointees die or retire, a new court will probably reinstate the law.

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:42 am

Irn-Bru wrote:Serious question for you, Skinsfan55: do you think Obama will respect constitutional limits to presidential power? If yes, what makes you think so?

Do you think Obama will decrease U.S. military presence abroad? (I don't mean reshuffle, I mean a net decrease.)

Just curious. . .Obama somehow got a reputation as a peace candidate, or at any rate many "anti-war" people are now going silent since he's going to be the president, but I'm not sure why. As for domestic/constitutional issues, maybe it's just because Bush was so bad that anyone looks better in comparison, but from what I understand Obama hasn't expressed any interest in removing illegal wiretaps, de-escalating constitutional violations in the name of 'security', etc. How is he supposed to be different?


I said at the time if I believed Obama would do this then I'd have voted for him. All the liberals were running around saying he will, he will. I said he won't, he won't.

Now five years later, they were wrong. Once again he's considering military action in Syria, yet another country we don't belong in. But they were not as wrong as this guy....

PulpExposure wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Serious question for you, Skinsfan55: do you think Obama will respect constitutional limits to presidential power? If yes, what makes you think so?


I'd tend to think so. He taught constitutional law at UChicago, after all. So he probably knows the limits on executive power (such as signing statements) that Bush never did (or just conveniently ignored). The most serious Constitutional scholars are actually those who believe in a limited executive branch (see Antonin Scalia, especially regarding domestic executive power).

In fact, Obama has explicitly said he will reverse quite a lot of the expansion of the exec office that occured under Bush (but has not given any particulars).

And the leader of his transition team, John Podesta, recently (Sept 2008) gave testimony to Congress regarding the Bush administration's policy regarding secrecy of records.

We'll see, though.


ROTFALMAO
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:47 am

Why would anyone expect government to give power back once they've gotten it?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:49 am

DarthMonk wrote:I could be wrong but I think "Judicial Review" is a power the court simply assumed and it's now an entrenched tradition. I do not believe the power of "Judicial Review" is spelled out anywhere in the constitution. Anyone know more about this?


It was Marbury v. Madison that Congress gave itself the power. The judicial branch was considered by the founders to be the weakest branch. When they declared the right to judicial review, it kind of made sense to the Founding Fathers as the weakest branch would be the one keeping the other two branches in check.

They never dreamed that Judicial Review would be used to turn the judiciary into a despotic dictatorship that would change the Constitution at whim. Live and learn. Maybe the next greatest country will learn from that like we learned from a lot of the mistakes that preceded us.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Return to The Lounge