Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 10:13am PT
|
It takes BALLS to mock a disabled person. Politically correct pussies are too cowardly to do this:
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:08am PT
|
Both sides are stumping for their own version of majority faction, and neither side is truly anchored in the original intent of the (whole) constitution.
Article III.
Section. 1.
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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
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.
What part of the original wording of the Constitution, above, do you think the SCOTUS violates, by interpreting the Constitution?
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:16am PT
|
Stoopid Americans will vote for the lesser of their evils.
They're so stoopid they can't even fix their system.
I would ask you how to fix it, but I know you have absolutely no idea.
Curt
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:17am PT
|
secondly, take a look at today's polls and explain what alternate universe you live in
here is my take on the alt univ..
Good polling is a good indicator... Problem is that the best polling is on the national level and there aren't a lot of good STATE polls in the public sphere. We need to start a Moody's Analytics for pollsters in order to give you, the consumer of these numbers, an idea about how reliable a specific state-based pollster is.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:18am PT
|
What part of the original wording of the Constitution, above, do you think the SCOTUS violates, by interpreting the Constitution?
Liberals and conservative agree that when SCOTUS interpretation of law crosses over into creating new law, this is unconstitutional. The problem is defining exactly where that line is.
Curt
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:22am PT
|
And the Constitution has a specific remedy for that unclarity: the legislature and executive change the law, or the country changes the Constitution, the process for which is clearly spelled out.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:25am PT
|
hB digs The Beatles
REVOLUTION
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead
REVOLUTION 9
Then there's this Welsh Rarebit wearing some brown underpants
About the shortage of grain in Hertfordshire
Everyone of them knew that as time went by
They'd get a little bit older and a litter slower but
It's all the same thing, in this case manufactured by someone who's always
Umpteen your father's giving it diddly-i-dee
District was leaving, intended to pay for
Number 9, number 9
Who's to know?
Who was to know?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:35am PT
|
GCF posted It would be great if it was 20, but the reality is that probably 30% of the bern voters will sit on their hands -we need to do all we can to advocate meaningful governance changes among the dems to give these folks a reason to vote.
Bullsh#t. A larger portion of Clinton supporters said they weren't going to vote for Obama than Sanders supporters have said the same about Clinton and that race was actually close and the Republican was actually a reasonable and competent candidate. Any Sanders holdouts are either going to wake up and vote for Clinton on their own, are voting for Trump because they don't actually understand politics or are petulant man-children with their heads buried so far up their own assess there isn't really anything worth courting. Our efforts are far better spent mobilizing the vote as a whole, getting huge numbers of people of color out to the polls and appealing to moderate Republican women. With the exception of limiting the debate schedule, the Democratic nominating process grossly favored Sanders. Anyone is withholding their vote because they think otherwise is a completely irrational actor and not worth spending time on.
Curt posted Liberals and conservative agree that when SCOTUS interpretation of law crosses over into creating new law, this is unconstitutional. The problem is defining exactly where that line is.
Can you point to some examples where liberals have said this? To my recollection "legislating from the bench" was a conservative talking point invented in the 90's to try to delegitimize decisions they didn't like. I haven't seen an actual legal argument supporting this.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:45am PT
|
Pretty basic choices folks have with the current system in place, don't vote, vote third party, write in ballot, Trump or Hillary.
My choice is clear, I'm voting for Hillary. If you don't see the difference in the two you are blind to reality.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:49am PT
|
Can you point to some examples where liberals have said this? To my recollection "legislating from the bench" was a conservative talking point invented in the 90's to try to delegitimize decisions they didn't like. I haven't seen an actual legal argument supporting this.
1) Citizens United
2) Heller
The legal argument supporting this is that the Constitution leaves the making of new law exclusively to Congress.
Curt
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:57am PT
|
Any Sanders holdouts are either going to wake up and vote for Clinton on their own, are voting for Drumpf because they don't actually understand politics or are petulant man-children with their heads buried so far up their own assess there isn't really anything worth courting.
wow, that's a pretty dickish and ignorant statement. Really, there are only three possibilities? Why, because you say so?
Are you stupid to believe that Sanders supporters in any volume what so ever would actually vote Drumpf?
"petulant man-children " - yeah, sure - sling insults. Does it make you feel better?
the 30% Sanders supporters that are not going to vote (where's that in your three options? Oh, never mind) for Mrs. Clinton are the youth that are participating in this process for the first time and are motivated because of Senator Sanders. They probably don't even care who or what Hillary is. With him out they simply won't show up. And that's too bad because the down ballet candidates need every vote.
Pull your head out of Hillary's ass for once.
I just hope She's kicking ass so bad in Colorado that I can write in Frank Zappa. Need to show up to make sure the other candidates get their vote. Will be tough races for the senate and the house here in colorado.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 12:40pm PT
|
More Britons are realizing that they were duped by empty, fraudulent promises by the Brexit campaign operatives.
This situation is an excellent opportunity for America to learn from the mistakes of another nation, so that we don't do the same here, and elect a president who makes empty, fraudulent promises that he will not, and cannot fulfill.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/nation-world/world/article86089172.html#storylink=latest_side
Cornwall, one of the poorest counties in England, has received an average of $82 million per year in subsidies from the European Union over the past ten years. The county is highly dependent on that income.
Brexit campaigners told Cornwall voters that if Britain left the European Union, the EU subsidies would continue to be paid (How stupid are those people in Cornwall?)
54% of Cornwall voters voted to leave the EU.
Now, they realize that the EU is not going to continue with those payments when the UK is no longer a member of the European Union. Cornwall leaders are in a panic, and are urgently calling for Parliament to take action and ensure that the lost EU subsidies will be paid from the British treasury.
The Brexit campaign leaders simply lied to an uninformed, gullible public in order to nefariously advance their ill-conceived, xenophobic agenda. It was obvious that the EU would not continue making the payments, but VOTE LEAVE campaign propaganda assured the public that the exact opposite would occur.
Only hours after helping to convince the British to vote for Brexit, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party, Nigel Farage, said that the Brexit campaign promises were "mistakes" and he denied making those promises to voters.
Got Trump?
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 12:45pm PT
|
Bob D'A posted:
Really, what were a bunch of white slave owners thinking when they wrote the constitution???
At that point in time, they were not thinking the same thing that (edit: other white), brown, red, yellow and black slave owners were thinking.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 12:51pm PT
|
It's interesting that the concept of "originalism" had to be invented 200 years after the Constitution was written.
What's "interesting" about that? While the founders were alive, people could simply ask them what this or that point of verbiage meant. And the founders wrote voluminously, so that we would have a historical record of these very "conversations." It's only fairly recently that people have adopted an attitude of uncoupling the original meanings from "the meanings" that support their pet projects. So, yes, you are right that it's only been recently that people have had to decry this practice and refer back to the original intent/meanings.
If by "anything" you mean "levy taxes" which the Constitution clearly states it can do.
Clever, but no cigar.
The question the court took itself to be contemplating was: "Under what rubric could this possibly be sustainable." The Obama administration was initially loath to call Obamacare a "tax" because it had spent a campaign year and initial years of the administration ASSURING Americans: "If you are a family making less than $250,000 per year, you will not see any form of tax increase," and so on. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWXd0tMYuOs)
However, as the SCOTUS sentiment against Obamacare was detected, the administration's solicitors realized that this needed to be cast as a "new tax."
Not being entirely stupid, Roberts recognized this tactic for what it was, and the context of his question was: "If government can do this [anything it wants under the guise of a tax], then what can government not do [because virtually any behavior can be 'taxed' and thereby brought under the rubric of a tax]?"
THAT context was what made his ruling precedent-setting. There's nothing newsworthy about the SCOTUS agreeing that government has the power to tax!
What was newsworthy and precedent-setting was that Obamacare was accepted by the SCOTUS under the guise of a tax. That tactic broke new ground, as Roberts' effective "answer" was: "Government can call anything a tax and thereby bring it within its powers to accomplish."
Now, not only is the "interstate commerce" clause writ large, granting the feds virtually unlimited powers, the power to tax is writ large, ensuring that the feds can do anything they want under the guise of a tax.
The Constitution is not a moral document, it is a legal document.
Law that are completely uncoupled from moral values are not legitimate laws. That is why our constitution references "rights" as its moral foundation.
All laws impose certain values over others (and the lack of laws has the same effect).
True. Which is why it is so critical that we are all on the same page about what those fundamental principles (the core values) really are.
This is why the abandonment of originalism is such a critical problem. Our nation was founded on the notion of negative rights. Over time the notion of "rights" has morphed into almost totally positive rights. But that decoupling is devastating, because when we all use the term "right," we appeal to some moral foundation for this or that law we want or don't want.
But we are now living in incommensurable paradigms. We don't mean the same thing when we use the most basic and foundational of terms. Thus, what we take to be "legitimate" governmental power comes wildly apart, and we are talking past each other all the time.
The purpose of the Constitution was to create a process that we could peacefully settle our differences in values.
No, the purpose of the constitution was to establish the very nature of governmental legitimacy, as our founders were all-consumed by the crucial question: What makes any government or governmental action legitimate?
Thus, our constitution was written to recognize certain basic rights: of the people, of the states, and of the federal government. With those rights were outlined the responsibilities and spheres of power necessary for the employment of those rights in action.
Decouple the notion of what a "right" is from what the founders intended, and you have a very different "constitution."
And "making" the "constitution" "say" what you want it to say (originalism be damned) is precisely the tactic of every administration.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 12:52pm PT
|
thoughtful commments mb1 -and thats' coming from a social liberal!
Much appreciated, GCF!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 12:54pm PT
|
What part of the original wording of the Constitution, above, do you think the SCOTUS violates, by interpreting the Constitution?
I believe that I've answered that just above.
What do you think "good Behavior" means?
BTW, don't you dare go to ANY of the founders' writings to figure that one out. Deny originalism, and you're left to your own devices to answer that question. Good luck!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 12:57pm PT
|
Liberals and conservative agree that when SCOTUS interpretation of law crosses over into creating new law, this is unconstitutional. The problem is defining exactly where that line is.
Spot on, as far as it goes.
Another problem is that we've lost sight of the most basic meanings intended by key phrases, which has cut our "values" totally adrift.
That means that we can only and necessarily be in our current state of affairs, where "both sides" seek to load the court to ensure that their own "take" on the meanings is how things are "interpreted."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 01:00pm PT
|
And the Constitution has a specific remedy for that unclarity: the legislature and executive change the law, or the country changes the Constitution, the process for which is clearly spelled out.
That's pretty blithe!
You know that "the legislature and executive" cannot trivially "change the law" once the SCOTUS has ruled. Witness just the deadlock over Obamacare. The SCOTUS ruling effectively MADE law, and then "the executive" could just sit there with the power of the veto to ensure that "the legislature" had no capacity to "make law."
Changing the constitution is far, far harder, as it should be!
The fact is (and you know this is true): Once the SCOTUS rules, it establishes law. So, it's interpretations have the de facto force of making law. And this is precisely why administrations so cherish their power to (as best they can) LOAD the court!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 01:40pm PT
|
warning: Text Generator In Full Force Here Today
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!